NASA-CR-?ol962
4*&*"*i*
12th National Space Symposium
PROCEEDINGS REPORT
United Statof Snoce Foundarion
A Symposium on
"Home Improvement
GLOBAL
SURVEILLANCE
The Space-Based Infrared
System (SBIRS) addresses
critical national needs:
♦ missile warning
♦ missile defense
♦ technical intelligence
♦ battlespace characterization.
I lughes and TRW are designing
the next-generation space-based
IR system that meets these needs.
We bring proven experience and
high performance across a broad
spectrum of space and ground
systems.
1 lughes and TRW. ...strengthening
the warfighter's ability to deter
tomorrow's threats.
A SURVEILLANCE
PARTNERSHIP
I OR PP. ACL
: s HUGHES
UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION
THE 12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
SPACE: Enhancing Life on Earth
PROCEEDINGS REPORT
The most comprehensive compilation of civil,
military, commercial, and international commentary
by the key space policy decision makers.
Publisher
Beth Ann Lipskin
Director of Communications, Marketing & Development
U.S. Space Foundation
Publishing Consultant
Mike Royal
Co-Editors
Alan & Beverly Hobden
Designer
Martha Lancaster
Production Assistants
Jennifer Fagala
Marcella Hughes
UMITED STATES SPACE FOGNDATIONI
2860 South Circle Drive, Suite 2301
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-4184
Phone
Fax:
Toll Free
(719)576-8000
(719)576-8801
(800) 691-4000
Technical Editors
Larry Bagley
Program Manager
System Technology Associates, Inc.
Maj. Ed Bolton, GSAF
Chief, Spacelift Vehicle Branch
Air Force Space Command/DR
Lt. Col. Len Campaigne, CP
Vice Chief, Requirements & Programs
NORAD
Ron Cole
National Security Agency Rep. to
Air Force Space Command
Capt. Marty France, C1SAF
Space Support Lead
Air Force Space Command/XP
Lt. Col. Rich Hand, GSAF
Chief, National Missile Defense
Air Force Space Command/DRDC
Maj. Cynthia McKinley GSAF
Strategy & Policy Analyst
Air Force Space Command/XP
Chuck Zimkas
Director of Operations & Plans
U.S. Space Foundation
DEDICATION
JACK SWIGERT
The United States Space Foundation is dedicated to the memory
of Astronaut and Congressman Jack Swigert, who dedicated his
life to the objectives and purposes for which this Foundation was
exclusively created: to promote national awareness and support for
America's space endeavors.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording,
or any information storage and retrieval systems, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
Copyright ® 1996 by:
United States Space Foundation
ISBN 1-889475-00-9
Additional copies of this publication are available from the
address below. See the order form on page 199.
Printed in the USA by McCormick-Armstrong
Published in 1996 in the USA by:
United States Space Foundation
2860 South Circle Drive, Suite 2301
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
(719)576-8000 Fax: (719)576-8801
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 14, 1996
Warm greetings to everyone gathered in Colorado Springs for the twelfth National Space
Symposium, sponsored by the United States Space Foundation.
America's endeavors in space have been among humanity's greatest achievements.
Space exploration has offered us new knowledge of the universe, new rewards in
technology, and new opportunity to bring our world closer together by developing strong
relationships and shared goals among nations. As we reach for the stars and beyond, our
accomplishments in space will help us to advance peace and prosperity on Earth.
I applaud the organizers and participants of the National Space Symposium for your
commitment to the future. Sharing your leadership, participation, and successes in
America's space program will pave the way to new and even greater achievements.
By spurring interest in space exploration in our youth — the scientists, mathematicians,
engineers, and leaders of tomorrow — you are making a long-term investment in
America's future and in the future of the world.
Best wishes for a most productive symposium and every continued success.
\i\S~A CisULKJ&U^.^
HONORARY PROCLAMATION
UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION WEEK
April 7-13, 1996
WHEREAS,
the United States Space Foundation is dedicated to carrying out its mission of
promoting national awareness and support for America's space endeavors; and
WHEREAS,
the world's space policy decision makers will gather at the 12th National Space
Symposium in Colorado Springs, April 9-12, 1996, to discuss and focus on how
space enhances life on Earth; and
WHEREAS,
three innovative technologies, Fire-Resistant Aircraft Seats, Radiant Barrier and the
Anti-Shock Trouser System, developed for America's space program and now widely
used in the industry, the medical field and purchased by the consumer, will be
inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame on April 11, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, proclaim April 7-13, 1996, as
UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION WEEK
in the State of Colorado.
GIVEN
under my hand and the Executive Seal of the State of Colorado, this nineteenth day
of March, 1996
WELCOME
On behalf of the United States Space Foundation, welcome to
the 12th National Space Symposium and the beautiful Pikes
Peak region. The week's schedule is packed with exciting topics
and events that will contribute substantially to our understanding
and cooperation as the world becomes more engaged in space
— in all its many dimensions.
The theme for our meeting this year — Space: Enhancing
Life on Earth — is most appropriate as we come together
representing government, industry, nations and indeed, interests
from around the globe to explore how space is improving our lives. Many of the world's
foremost space authorities and decision makers are on hand to discuss and debate the
critical issues facing our space-faring societies today.
The experts will stimulate your thinking and improve your ability to succeed by offering
insights into all aspects of contemporary space issues. Each year, participation in the
symposium and surrounding events becomes more international which merely reflects
the nature of research and business in the world today.
In recognition of this important trend, we are hosting concurrently with the 12th National
Space Symposium, the United Nations/United States International Conference on
Spin-off Benefits of Space & Technology. Focused on developing nations, the theme for
this meeting — Challenges and Opportunities — complements the other sessions and
activities perfectly. The Foundation is delighted and proud to be integrating this
international event into our exciting schedule of activities this week.
Please take full advantage of all that is happening here at the five-star Broadmoor Hotel
this week from the superb professional sessions and first rate industry exhibits to the
entertaining opening ceremony and very special Space Technology Hall of Fame dinner.
Sincerely,
James E. Hill, General, CJSAF (Ret.)
Chairman of the Board
United States Space Foundation
United States Space Foundation
12th National Space Symposium 1996
Table of Contents
Dedication
Sessions
Welcome
Bill Clinton
President of the United States
Roy Romer
Governor, State of Colorado .
in
IV
General James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.)
Chairman of the Board
United States Space Foundation v
Co-Sponsored Events
The U.S. Launch Vehicle Industry —
Will It Survive? viii
GPS International Association Second Annual
Meeting ix
G.N./G.S. International Conference on Spin-off
Benefits of Space and Technology x
Foreword
Gnited States Space Foundation Mission . . . . xii
Board of Directors & Officers xiii
Gnited States Space Foundation Awards . . . .xviii
Corporate Members xx
Contributing Sponsors & Members xxii
United States Space Foundation
Volunteers and Staff xxiv
Tuesday, April 9, 1996
Opening Ceremony
Moderators
Dr. Jerry Brown 1
E.P. Flemyng 1
Alia Pfauntsch 1
Welcome
Richard R MacLeod 3
Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 Twenty-Fifth
Anniversary Tribute
Gen. James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.) 4
Public Outreach Award
Capt. James A. Lovell, GSM (Ret.) 5
First Space Shuttle Flight Fifteenth Aniversary
Thomas H. Kennedy 6
Joint Venture in Space
Dr. Buzz Aldrin 7
Mission Home
Capt. James A. Lovell, GSN (Ret.) 8
Wednesday, April 10, 1996
Morning Session
Keynote Address
Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan 11
Space Applications and Cooperation
Master Moderator
Steve Scott 21
Chair
Hon. Edward C. Aldridge 21
Speakers
Dr. Arturo Silvestrini 22
Robert Minor 23
Michael Gianelli 26
Akiyoshi Takada 30
Afternoon Session
Earth Sensing, Communication, and
Navigation Applications
Master Moderator
Steve Scott 39
Chair
Roy Gibson 39
Speakers
Dr. John S. MacDonald 41
Dr. Murray Felsher 44
David T. Edwards 46
Vice Adm. William E. Ramsey 51
W. David Thompson 54
Faster, Better, Cheaper
Master Moderator
Steve Scott 63
Chair
Hon. Hans Mark 63
Speakers
Peter Wilhelm 68
Dr. Edward Stone 72
Thursday, April 11,1996
Morning Session
Global Security Interests in Space
Master Moderator
Steve Scott 81
Chair
Gen. Joseph W. Ashy 81
Keynote
Hon. Robert Davis 82
Brig. Gen. Willie B. Nance 86
Maj. Gen. Robert Dickman 88
Rear Adm. Katharine Laughton 90
Maj. Gen. David Vesely 91
Jeffrey Grant 93
Symposium Luncheon Presentation
Featured Speaker
Hon. Daniel S. Goldin 109
Afternoon Session
International Space Station and Space Launch
Capabilities
Master Moderator
Steve Scott 117
Chair
Lon L. Rains 117
Speakers
Prof. Ernesto Vallerani 117
Dr. Alexander N. Kuznetsov 125
Mac Evans 129
James RNoblit 132
Michael W. Wynne 136
Thomas F Rogers 140
Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner
Presentation
Featured Speaker
Joseph T Gorman 145
Friday, April 12,1996
Speaker
Hon. Lionel S. Johns 149
"TechNation" National Public Radio / Voice
of America Radio and TV Program
Master Moderator
Steve Scott 153
Chair
Dr. Moira Gunn 153
Panelists
Hon. Robert Walker 154
Hon. Joel Hefley 154
Hon. Lionel S. Johns 154
Dr. Edward Stone 154
Speaker
Hon. Jake Gam 163
APPENDICES
Featured Speakers 1 68
Program Participants 171
Space Technology Hall Of Fame 179
1 996 Symposium Volunteers 1 82
1996 Symposium Attendees 183
Abbreviations & Acronyms Glossary 197
Proceedings Order Form and Membership
Application 199
uii
THE U.S. LAUNCH VEHICLE INDUSTRY -
WILL IT SURVIVE?
CO-SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1996
8:30 AM Welcome and Introduction to Launchspace
8:45 AM Introduction to Launch Vehicles and How They Function.
10:00 AM Mass Ratio Limitations and the Difficulty in Getting to Orbit.
10:45 AM Launch Vehicle ingredients and How They Go Together.
1 1 :30 AM Launch Vehicle Design Drivers.
12:00 Moon Lunch
1:00 PM The Connections Between the Payload and the Launch Vehicle.
1 :30 PM Worldwide Survey of Launch Vehicles and Sites.
2:30 PM Cost Elements of Expendable and Reusable Vehicles.
3:15 PM The Truth About America's Developing Launcher Programs.
4:00 PM Adjourn
Instructor: Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D., is the chairman of Launchspace,
Inc., an education services company endeavoring to offer the broadest
selection of relevant, high quality, professional development and
continuing education courses and seminars to the space community.
Dr. Kaplan is a specialist in the development of new launch vehicles and
space flight concepts and programs. He has served as the Chief
Engineer on a fully reusable launcher system in its early stages of
development and on the Conestoga expendable launch vehicle. Dr.
Kaplan is also a co-inventor of a new mobile, small expendable launch
system for military applications, and he is involved in a number of other
new booster concept developments. Your instructor is a member of the National Research
Council's Committee on Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Development and Test Program, and
he has over 30 years of academic and industrial experience with launch vehicles, satellites, and
space technologies. He was a Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the Pennsylvania State
University and the Director of the space Research Institute. Dr. Kaplan enjoys an international
reputation as an expert and lecturer in aerospace vehicle design, dynamics, and control. In
addition to publishing some 75 papers, reports, and articles on aerospace technologies, he is
the author of several books, including the text, "Modern Spacecraft Dynamics and Control."
Dr. Kaplan holds advanced degrees from MIT and Stanford University.
Dill
GPS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONSECOND ANNUAL MEETING
"GPS: AN ENABLING TECHNOLOGY"
CO-SPONSOR OF THE UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1996
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
9:45 AM
10:30 AM
11:15AM
12:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:45 PM
3:15 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
Opening Remarks
Dr. Francis X. Kane, GIA Founding President
"The GPS Program Status"
Col. John P. Caldwell, USAF, Deputy Assistant
Program Director, NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office
"Geographic Information System and Mapping Management with GPS"
Jeff Allen, GPS/GIS Project Manager, GEO Research, Inc.
"GPS Vehicle Location for Personal Security and Recovery"
Steven W. Riebel, President, ATX Research, Inc.
"Japan's View of GPS"
Thomas Kato, Director, Japan Institute for Future Technology
Luncheon
Speaker: Dr. Bonnie J. Dunbar, NASA Astronaut
Keynote Address
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee; Science Committee,
U.S. House of Representative
Questions and Answers with Congressman Sensenbrenner
Special Address: "The Global Positioning System: Assessing National Priorities"
Dr. Scott Pace, RAND-CTI
"New Direction in Atmospheric Remote Sensing at NOAA's
Boulder Laboratories"
Dr. Russell B. Chadwick, Chief-Demonstration Division, NOAA Forcast
Systems Lab
"Equipment Location Systems — Providing Intermodal Terminal Operators
with Information Accuracy"
Ken Kelley, Vice President, STC Applications
Questions and Answers with Dr. Pace, Dr. Chadwick, and Mr. Kelley
GIA Annual Meeting
Dr. Francis X. Kane, Founding President and GIA Staff
Adjourn
Moderator: Dr. Francis X. "Duke" Kane is the president of the GPS International
Association and participates in government committees concerned with civil users and
GPS technology including consulting for the Office of the Secretary of Defense on
development of long range strategy and policy. He has served as director of strategic
systems, Advanced Systems Development, for Rockwell International; manager of
requirements analysis for TRW Systems Inc., which included performing studies of
national security policy and strategy and application of technologies to emerging business
opportunities; deputy for development plans for Air Force Space and Missile Systems
Organizations;and special assistant to the deputy chief of staff of research and develop-
ment in the Office of the Secretary for the Air Force. He initiated and conducted internal
analyses of the impact of SALT and SALT II on Minuteman and MX missiles and provided
the data to OSD and the Air Force. He holds a BS form the U.S. Military Academy, West
Point, NY; an MA and a Ph.D. from Georgetown University. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics and of the International Academy of Astronautics and its Space Safety and Rescue Committee.
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
United Nations/United States International Conference on Spin-Off Benefits
of Space Technology: Challenges and Opportunities
Monday, April 8 -
Friday, April 12, 1996
Participating Organizations:
National Aeronautics and Space
Adminstration
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Federal Laboratory Consortium
U.S. Information Agency
G.S. Department of State
American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics
United States Space Foundation
United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs
Monday, April 8
6:00-7:30 p.m.
Welcoming Ceremony & Remarks
Richard R "Dick" MacLeod, President, U.S.
Space Foundation
John G. Hazlehurst, Member, Colorado
Springs City Council
Beth A. Masters, Director, International
Relations, NASA Headquarters
Adigun Ade Abiodun, Expert on Space
Applications, United Nations Office for Outer
Space Affairs
Tuesday, April 9
9:00 a.m.
Welcome, Introductions, and Opening
Remarks
Chair: Dr. Brenda Forman, Director, Federal
Planning & Analysis, Lockheed Martin Corp.
Richard P "Dick" MacLeod, President, U.S.
Space Foundation
Adigun Ade Abiodun, Expert on Space
Applications, United Nations Office for Outer
Space Affairs
9:30 a.m.
Space Technology Applications: Evolution
Status
Speaker: Dr. Robert Norwood, Director,
Commercial Development & Technology
Transfer Division, NASA
10.15 a.m.
Benefits of US-Federal Research and
Development to Society, Role of Federal
Laboratories
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Catherine Woteki,
Deputy Undersecretary for Research,
Education and Economics, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
10:35 a.m.
Panel Discussion
Chair: Frank Penaranda, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Panelists: Dr. Catherine Woteki, Deputy
Undersecretary for Research, Education and
Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Dr. Robert Norwood, Director, Commercial
Development & Technology Transfer Division,
NASA
W. David Thompson, President, Spectrum
Astro, Inc.
Frank Stewart, Manager
Golden Field Office, U.S. Department of
Energy
James A. M. Muncy, Legislative Assistant for
Space to Congressman Dana Rohrbacher
(R-CA)
12:00 p.m.
U.NAI.S. Conference and Global
Positioning System International
Association (GIA) Luncheon
Speaker: Dr. Bonnie Dunbar, NASA Astronaut
1:30 p.m.
U.NAI.S. and GIA Conference
Chair: Francis X. "Duke" Kane Ph.D., GIA
Founding President
Introduction: Richard R "Dick" MacLeod,
President, U.S. Space Foundation
Keynote Address:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
(R-WI), Chairman, Space & Aeronautics
Subcommittee of the Science Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives
2:00 p.m.
Q&A
2:15 p.m.
The Global Positioning System: Assessing
GPS National Priorities
Speaker: Dr. Scott Pace, Critical Technologies
Institute, Rand Corporation
2:45 p.m.
New Direction in Atmospheric Remote
Sensing At NOAA's Boulder Laboratories
Speaker: Dr. Russell B. Chadwick, Chief,
Demonstration Division, NOAA Forcast
Systems Lab,
3:10 p.m.
Equipment Location Systems-Providing
Intermodal Terminal Operators with
Information Accuracy
Speaker: Ken Kelley, Vice-President, STC
Applications and Consultant to Amtech
Systems Corp.
3:30 p.m.
Q&A
Dr. Pace, Mr. Chadwick, and Mr. Kelley
4:00 p.m.
U.NAI.S. Conference Resumes
Chair: Dr. Brenda Forman, Director, Federal
Planning & Analysis, Lockheed Martin Corp.
High Resolution Imaging and Data
Applications
Speakers: Jim Frelk, Vice President,
Government Operations, EarthWatch, Inc.
John Neer, President, Space Imaging Co.
Ted G. Nanz, President, SPOT Image Corp.
M.G. Hammann, Head, Asesores en Biologia
Pesquera S.A. de C.V, Mexico
5:00 p.m.
Q&A
7:00 p.m.
12th National Space Symposium Opening
Ceremony (See Symposium Program)
Wednesday, April 10
8:30 a.m.
Using Space to Enhance Life on Earth
Keynote Address:
Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan, Chairman,
Government of India, Departmentof Space,
Indian Space Research Organization
9:10 a.m.
Space Applications and Cooperation
(See Symposium Program)
1:30 p.m.
OPTION I - Tours to aerospace technology
firms in Colorado Springs
OPTION II - Earth Sensing,
Communication, and Navigation
Applications (See Symposium Program)
3:45 p.m.
Faster, Better, Cheaper
(See Symposium Program)
Thursday, April 11
8:30 a.m.
U.S. Commercial Use of Space: Industry vs.
Government Roles
Chair: Frank Penaranda, U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Commercial Space Policy
Speaker: Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director,
Office of Air & Space Commercialization,
Department of Commerce
UN./U.S. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPIN-OFF BENEFITS OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY
8:50 a.m.
U.S. Commercial Ventures and Trends
Speakers: Dr. George May, Director, ITD,
Space Remote Sensing Center, Center for the
Commercial Development of Space, NASA,
Stennis Space Center
Mr. Herb Satterlee, President, Resource 2 1
9:30 a.m.
Q& A
Mr. Calhoun-Senghor, Dr. May and
Dr. Satterlee
9:50 a.m.
International Trends
Speaker: Ms. Anne-Marie Hieronimus-Leuba,
Head, Office of Space Commercialization,
European Space Agency, France
10:10 a.m.
Roles/Opportunities for Developing Nations
in the Utilization of Space Derived Products
Speaker: Dr. K.VC. Rao, Managing Director,
ABR Organics Ltd., India
10:30 a.m.
Q&A
Ms. Hieronimus-Leuba and Dr. Rao
10:50 a.m.
Successful Mechanisms for Establishing
Commercial Partnerships & for
Transferring Technology within a Country
Speakers: Brenda Karasik, Far West Regional
Coordinator, Federal Laboratory Consortium,
Naval Command, Control Ocean Surveillance
Center, San Diego, CA
Gary Sera, Director, Mid-Continent Region,
Regional Technology Transfer Center
11:20 a.m.
Licensing Domestic and International
Intellectual Property
Speaker: John Paul, Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, LLP
11:40 a.m.
Q&A
Ms. Karasik, Mr. Sera, and Mr. Paul
12:00 p.m.
Symposium/Conference Luncheon
Speaker: The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin,
NASA Administrator
1:30 p.m.
Space Technology Spin-off Sectors of
Potential Benefit to Developing Nations
Chair: John J. Egan, President, Egan
International
1:50 p.m.
Heathcare Telecommunications
Speakers: Dr. W. Ferguson, MD, Director,
Aerospace Medicine & Occupational Health,
Division, Office of Life and Microgravity
Sciences & Application, NASA
Dr. A.M. House, MD, Chairman, Telemedicine
Program, Memorial University of
Newfoundland, Canada
Alok Garg, Director, OPTOMECH Engineers
PVT Ltd., India
2:30 p.m.
Q&A
Dr. Ferguson, Dr. House, and Mr. Garg
2:45 p.m.
Global Monitoring and Human Health
Speaker: Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, M.D.,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Life
& Microgravity Sciences & Applications, NASA
Headquarter
3:05 p.m.
Monitoring Crop Conditions and
Assessment of Yields Using Satellite and
Ground-Based Observations
Speaker: Dr. Paul C. Doraiswamy, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, Natural Resources Institute
3:25 p.m.
Telecom Africa: An Indigenous Initiative
Speaker: Dr. Joseph Okpaku, Sr., President,
Okpaku Communications Company, Nigeria
3:40 p.m.
The SALSA (Semi-Arid Land-Surface-
Atmosphere) Program: A Multi-national,
Multi-disciplinary Program Utilizing Remote
Sensing and In-situ Observations with
Models
Speaker: Dr. David C. Goodrich, Research
Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
3:55 p.m.
Q&A
Dr. Nicogossian, Dr. Opaku, Dr. Doraiswamy,
and Dr. Goodrich
5:15 p.m.
Space Technology Hall of Fame Reception
6:30 p.m.
Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner
Speaker: Joseph T Gorman, Chairman &
CEO, TRW Inc.
Friday, April 12
9:00 a.m.
PLENARY SESSION
Developing Country's Involvement and
Benefits from Space, Applications and
Commercialization
Chair: Dr. Mazlan Othman, Director General,
Space Sciences Study Division, National
Planetarium, Malaysia
Spin-off Benefits of Space Technology:
Specific Industry Experience
Speakers: Joseph Elbling, President/CEO,
Digicon S.A., Brazil
Professor Janusz Bronislaw Zielinski, CEO,
Polspace Ltd., Poland
Morteza Hosseini Abkenari, Managing and
Technical Director, Solar Power, KGALAGADI
Resources Development Co., Botswana
10:30 a.m.
Human Resources Development
Speaker: Adigun Ade Abiodun, Expert on
Space Applications, United Nations Office
for Outer Space Affairs
Dr. Jerry Brown, Director of Education, United
States Space Foundation
11:15 a.m.
Featured Address:
The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin, NASA
Administrator
12:00 p.m.
Conference Luncheon
1:15 p.m.
Breakout Sessions on Space Technology
and Spin-Off Opportunities
Concurrent Sessions:
1. "Space Technology in Health, Biomedicine
and Education Applications and Human
Resource Development"
Breakout Chair: John J. Egan, President,
Egan International
Vice-Chair: Professor Boris 1. Bonev, President,
Bulgarian Aerospace Agency, Bulgaria
2. "Communications for Development:
Development of Communications
Infrastructure with Emphasis on Applications
Opportunities in Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Global Information Systems"
Breakout Chair: W. David Thompson,
President, Spectrum Astro, Inc.
Vice-Chair: Engr. Gilbert O. Uzodike,
Chairman, ADSWITCH PLC, Nigeria
3:30 p.m.
Plenary - Summary and Recommendations
for Sessions 1 and 2
Chairs: John J. Egan, President, Egan
International
M.G. Hammann, Head, Aseores en Biologia
Pesquera S.A. de C.V, Mexico
4:15 p.m.
Plenary - Summary and Recommendations
for Session 3
Chair: Dr. Mazlan Othman, Director General,
Space Science Studies, National Planetarium,
Malaysia
5:00 p.m.
Closing Remarks
United Nations-Speaker: Adigun Ade
Abiodun, Expert on Space Applications,
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
United States of America-Speaker: Beth A.
Masters, Director of International Relations,
NASA Headquarters
THE UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION
OUR VISION
A vigorous, successful American Space Program leading the world; that ensures
American business leadership in space technoloqy; that requires American educational
excellence, particularly in math, science, and technology; that produces pride in
America, and public involvement and support of space.
Thai l'Ronrci-s
OUR MISSION
To promote national awareness and support for America's space endeavors
OUR GOALS
Promote the romance and relevance of space to the public with information,
entertainment, and products.
Prepare K - 12 educators in using space science and technology in the classroom to
inspire students and enhance learning.
Provide access to information on space policy, programs, and current issues for space
and business professionals.
Develop and operate a Space Discovery Center theme attraction in Colorado Springs to
support, distribute, and deliver the Foundation's programs, products, and services.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
GENERAL JAMES E. HILL, (ISAF (Ret.), Chairman
General James Hill served as President of the Colorado Springs-based Olive Company from
1986 to 1993, and President of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce for several years
after his retirement from the U.S. Air Force. He is a graduate of the University of Maryland and
the Royal Air Force Flying School in England. Former Commander-in-Chief of the North
American Air Defense Command, General Hill was a Air Force combat fighter ace in WWII and
the Korean Conflict.
WILLIAM B. TUTT, Vice Chairman
William Tutt is principal of Tutco and Chairman Emeritus of the Colorado Springs Sports
Corporation. He served as Vice President of the U.S. Olympic Committee and President of the
Broadmoor Management Co. Mr. Tutt is now the the Chairman of the U.S. Olympic Festival
Committee and Co-Chairman of the Colorado Thirty Group. Mr. Tutt serves on the Board of
Directors for the Air Force Academy Foundation (Vice President), Norwest Banks of Colorado,
Colorado Interstate Gas Company and previously served on the Board of Directors for U.S. West
Communications Colorado.
W. BRUCE KOPPER, ESQUIRE, Secretary-Treasurer
Bruce Kopper is President of the investment counseling firm, Kopper Investment Management,
Inc.. in Colorado Springs. Mr. Kopper is a graduate of Washington University in St. Louis,
Missouri, with degrees in economics (A.B. 1958) and law (J.D. 1959), and is licensed to practice
law in Missouri and Colorado. He practiced law for 28 years before entering the investment
management business in 1987. He is a member of the Denver Society of Security Analysts and
the Association for Investment Management & Research.
WILLIAM H. HUDSON, Director
Executive Committee Member-at- Large William Hudson's entire professional career of 31 years
was with Coming Glass Works, now Corning Incorporated. When he retired in 1985, he was
President of the Glass and Ceramics Group and a member of the Board of Directors, the
Executive Committee and the Management Committee. Prior to the Group Presidency he was
Senior Vice-President and General Manager of the Technical Products Division. Mr. Hudson lived
in Paris, France for more than six years where he was Chairman and CEO of Coming's largest
overseas subsidiary. He is now a Director of Analytical Surveys Inc., Colorado Springs. CO, and
investor/advisor in several start-up companies. Mr. Hudson has a degree in Physics from
Carnegie Institute of Technology and attended the Harvard Business School Advanced
Management Program.
DIRECTORS
EDWARD C. "PETE" ALDRIDGE, JR., Director
Edward C. Aldridge, Jr. is President and Chief Executive Officer of The Aerospace Corporation, a
nonprofit organization dedicated to the objective application of science and technology toward the
solution of critical national problems. Previously, Aldridge served as president of McDonnell
Douglas Electronic Systems Company. He also served in many government positions, including
Secretary of the Air Force. Aldridge received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M
University and earned his graduate degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
xiu
ROBERT ANDERSON, Director
Robert Anderson is Chairman Emeritus of Rockwell International and past CEO. He earned a
Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Colorado State University, a Master's degree in
Automotive Engineering from the Chrysler Institute of Engineering and spent 22 years with the
Chrysler Corporation, rising to Vice President of Corporate Automotive Manufacturing. Under his
direction, Rockwell snared the 1982 Collier Trophy for the company's work on the Space Shuttle
Orbiter, awarded by the National Aeronautic Association for "the greatest achievement in
aeronautics or astronautics in America with respect to improving the performance, efficiency or
safety of air or space vehicles". He has served as Chairman of the Business Higher Education
Forum and the Board of Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIAA).
JAMES M. BEGGS, Director
James Beggs is the former Chairman of the Board, SPACEHAB, Inc., and is a principal in Beggs
International. As Administrator for NASA ( 1 98 1 ■ 1 985) he was responsible for initiating and
obtaining President Reagan's support for the Space Station program. He was Administrator during
22 successful shuttle flights and was responsible as the President's representative for obtaining
cooperation in the Space Station Program of the European Space Agency, Japan and Canada.
Mr. Beggs graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and Harvard Graduate School of Business. He
holds six honorary degrees and was awarded the Robert H. Goddard Trophy by the National
Space Club in 1988
COLONEL FRANK BORMAN, USAF (Ret.), Director
Colonel Frank Borman, USAF (Ret.) is the Chairman, CEO and President of Patlex Corporation.
He was the commander of the 1968 Apollo 8 Mission and led the first team of American astronauts
to circle the moon. After his retirement from the Air Force, he joined Eastern Airlines and became
Chairman of the Board before he retired from Eastern. He is currently a member of the Boards
of Directors of The Home Depot, AutoFinance Group, Thermo Instrument Systems and American
Superconductor. He earned a B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy, West Point and an M.S.
in aeronautical engineering from the California Institute of Technology. He has received the
Congressional Space Medal of Honor and the National Geographic Society's Hubbard Medal.
He was inducted into the International Aerospace Hall of Fame in 1990, and the U.S. Astronaut
Hall of Fame in 1993.
CAPTAIN EUGENE A. CERNAN, USN (Ret.), Director
Captain Eugene A. Cernan is President and CEO of The Cernan Corporation and The Cernan
Group, Inc. In a recent acquisition, Captain Cernan became Chairman of the Board of Johnson
Engineering Corp. Captain Cernan was an Executive Consultant for Aerospace and Government
for Digital Equipment Corporation from 1986-1992. From 1976 to 1981, he was International
Executive Vice President, for Coral Petroleum, Inc. Prior to 1 976, he was a naval aviator and
NASA astronaut. He flew three separate space missions, Gemini IX, Apollo X, and holds the
distinction of being the last man to leave his footprints on the surface of the moon as commander
of Apollo XVII. Captain Cernan received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from
Purdue University and a Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Post
Graduate School, honorary doctorates of engineering from Purdue, Drexel and Gonzaga
Universities and an honorary doctorate from Western State College of Law.
THE HONORABLE E. J. "JAKE" GARN, Director
E.J. "Jake" Garn was named Vice Chairman of Huntsman Chemical Corporation in Salt Lake City,
Utah, in 1993 after he retired from the U.S. Senate where he served three terms. During his 18
years in the Senate he served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs, VA, HUD and the Independent Agencies Subcommittee. He received a B.S. in
Banking and Finance from the University of Utah. He served in the U.S. Navy as a pilot and is a
retired Brigadier General in the Utah Air National Guard with more than 10,000 hours of flight
experience. He was invited by NASA to fly as a payload specialist on the space shuttle
Discovery, flight 51-D, in 1984. During his 109 orbits of the earth he conducted various medical
tests. In 1992, he was honored with the Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy. He serves on several
boards including Dean Witter Funds of New York City, The Aerospace Corporation and the Salt
Lake City Airport Authority.
XIV
JAMES B. HAYES, Director
James B. Hayes is president and CEO of Junior Achievement Inc., a nationwide non-profit
organization which provides economic education to over 2 million students in the U.S. and an
additional 600,000 young people in more than 85 countries around the world. Hayes has been a
board member of that organization since 1987. In 1994, following a 35-year career at Time Inc.,
Mr. Hayes founded The New American Revolution, a not-for-profit organization. The mission of
The New American Revolution is to rally the efforts of the U.S. business community to address
the social, economic, and educational needs of children. An advocate for improvement of the
U.S. public education system, Mr. Hayes established the Fortune Education Summit. Held
annually in Washington, D.C. from 1988-1993, the Summit brought together government,
business and academic leaders to discuss the role of the business community in education
reform. In September of 1990, Mr. Hayes was one of 1 5 U.S. executives selected to join a presidential mission to the
Soviet Union to discuss new business development and economic cooperation. Mr. Hayes is a former chairman of the
board of Morehouse School of Medicine. He continues to serve on the board as well as the board of trustees of the New
York Hall of Science, Mr. Hayes received his education at the Canterbury School and Georgetown University.
SAM F. IACOBELLIS, Director
Sam F. lacobellis is former Deputy Chairman and former Executive Vice Chairman for major
programs for Rockwell International. He worked with key customers and Rockwell businesses
on large government programs including the Space Station, Space Shuttle, B-1B, National
Aero-Space Plane, Ground Based Interceptor, Brilliant Eyes and Joint Primary Aircraft Training
Systems programs. He joined Rockwell's predecessor company, North American Aviation, in
1952, as an aircraft design engineer. He also has served Rockwell as President of Aerospace
Operations. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering at the University of
California at Los Angeles. He is a Fellow of the International Academy of Astronautics and a
Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
DR. JOHN L. McLUCAS, Director
Dr. John McLucas is an Aerospace Consultant, Chairman of the Board of External Tanks Corp.,
and on the Board of Directors of Orbital Sciences Corp. Dr. McLucas was Secretary of the Air
Force from 1973 to 1975. He has served as Chairman of the International Space University, as
NATO's Assistant Secretary for Science, President and CEO of MITRE Corporation, Under
Secretary of the Air Force, FAA Administrator, Executive Vice President of COMSAT, President of
COMSAT World Systems Division and President of COMSAT General. A space authority, Dr.
McLucas is the former U.S. Chairman of the International Space Year Association and Chairman
of NASA's Advisory Board. He is the author of the book, Space Commerce, published in April,
1991 , by Harvard University Press. He earned his bachelor's degree from Davidson College, his
master's degree from Tulane University and his Ph.D. from Penn State University, all in Physics.
THE HONORABLE BILL NELSON, Director
Bill Nelson was recently elected Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Florida.
He has been a practicing attorney since 1970, graduating from the University of Virginia Law
School, J.D. in 1968, and until his election was an attorney with Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. in
Melbourne, Florida. He served in the U.S. Army as a Captain from 1968-1970. Nelson trained
and flew with the crew of STS-61 C, Columbia, the 24th flight of the Space Shuttle in 1986.
Among his publications is his book, MISSION: An American Congressman's Voyage to Space.
Nelson served with the U.S. House of Representatives from 1979 to 1991 , representing the 1 1th
Congressional District in Florida and the Florida House of Representatives from 1972 tol978.
THE HONORABLE JAIME OAXACA, Director
Jaime Oaxaca is vice chairman of Coronado Communications Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif.,
in charge of public relations, marketing, and research. He has 37 years of experience in the
fields of engineering, engineering management, and program management. He held various
administrative positions including director of international and domestic marketing and long
range planning; Vice president or missile programs and vice president and assistant general
manager of the Northrop Corporation, Electromechanical Division; and president of
Northrop- Wilcox Electric, Inc. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University
of Texas, El Paso, and is a graduate of the School of Business at Stanford University. He is a
Distinguished Fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of Engineering. He was the first
recipient of the "Jaime Oaxaca" award for excellence in engineering and dedication to the
community from the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, the Business and Industry Award from the
Mexican-American Opportunities Foundation, and the Outstanding Engineer Merit Award from the Institute for the
Advancement of Engineering.
xu
RICHARD D. O'CONNOR, Director
Richard D. O'Connor is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lintas:Campbell-Ewald
Company and aBoard member of Lintas Worldwide, an international advertising agency. Mr.
O'Connor joined Campbell-Ewald in 1956, as a trainee on the Chevrolet account and held various
positions with the company. Mr. O'Connor is Chairman of the American Advertising Federation,
and is a member of the Menninger Foundation Board of Trustees. He is a graduate of the
University of Michigan.
GENERAL JOHN L. "PETE" PIOTROWSKI, USAF (Ret.), Director
General Pete Piotrowski retired from the U.S. Air Force as Commander in Chief of the North
American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command. The General
has logged more than 5,000 flying hours, including 100 combat missions and 210 combat flying
hours. He has received numerous awards, to include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal,
Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit and the Eugene M. Zuckert Management Award for
1979. He graduated from the University of Nebraska at Omaha in 1965, with a Bachelor of
Science degree. He completed postgraduate work at the University of California and Auburn
(Ala.) University and attended the program for management development at Harvard University.
DR. WESLEY W. POSVAR, Director
Dr. Wesley W. Posvar is Professor of International Politics and President Emeritus of the University
of Pittsburgh. He is a founding member and former Chairman of the Business-Higher Education
Forum, an organization composed of the chief executives of about 30 of the nation's most
powerful corporations and a like group of presidents of leading universities. In this capacity
he leads efforts to improve national awareness and action in such areas as capital formation,
international competitiveness, science and technology, research and regulatory reform. He was
founding chairman of the Federal Emergency Management Advisory Board and of the National
Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology. He is presently Trustee Chairman of
the Czech Management Center in Prague. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy where
he graduated first in his class. He was a professor at West Point and the founding chairman of the
Political Science Department of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Dr. Posvar is a command pilot. He flew as a test pilot at the
Air Proving Ground in the Berlin Airlift and in combat in Southeast Asia. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, a Littauer
Fellow at Harvard and Research Fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies.
THE HONORABLE KENNETH B. KRAMER, Director Emeritus
A former four-term United States Representative, Ken Kramer is an Associate Judge for the U.S.
Court of Veterans Appeals. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois and the Harvard School of
Law. Judge Kramer was a founding member of the United States Space Foundation. He served
as a Colorado State Representative from 1973 to 1978. Mr. Kramer is a former Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management. He also served on the U.S. Air Force
Academy Board of Visitors.
DR. SIMON RAMO, Director Emeritus
Dr. Simon Ramo, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of
Science, is co-founder of TRW Inc. He has been Chairman of the President's Committee on
Science and Technology and Chief Scientist in the development of the U.S. Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile. He has been a member of the Advisory Council to the Secretary of State on
Science and Foreign Affairs, the White House Council on Energy Research and Development, the
Advisory Council to the Secretary of Commerce and the National Science Board. A visiting
Professor at Caltech, he has been a Fellow of the Faculty of the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University and Chairman of UCLA School of Medicine Planning Committee. He is the
author of tests widely used in the world's universities.
XVI
FOUNDATION EXECUTIVES
RICHARD P. MacLEOD, President
Dick MacLeod was named president of the United States Space Foundation in 1988
after serving as Executive Director since 1985. Under his leadership the National
Space Symposium has become a premier event that provides broad pro and con
space policy dialogue, the Foundation established, with NASA, the Space
Technology Hall of Fame, and launched Getting Comfortable Teaching with Space,
the cornerstone of the Foundation's educational programs. MacLeod is well known
to many space organizations as a cooperative innovator and has served on the
Space Policy Advisory Board for the Vice President. While a senior research fellow at the National
Defense University, he co-authored Space — A National Security Dilemma. He concluded his 24-year Air
Force career as chief of staff, NORAD and the first chief of staff, Air Force Space Command. He
received a bachelor of arts in government from the University of Massachusetts and a master of arts in
international relations from the University of Southern California. He is also a graduate of the Armed
Forces Staff College, the National War College, the State Department Interdepartmental Seminar on
Foreign Policy and is a distinguished graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
JACK FLANNERY, Executive Director
Jack Flannery joined the U.S. Space Foundation as executive director in January
1 99 1 . Responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Foundation he has brought
new focus and efficiency to the organization through strategic and operational
planning. Under his leadership, the Foundation's education programs have
expanded dramatically and new and innovative public outreach and education
programs have been developed. Previously vice president of Flight Safety Services
Corporation, he was responsible for the company's Space Training Systems and
Instructional Systems Divisions providing state-of-the-art training solutions for government and industry
clients. Mr. Flannery, completed a 27-year U.S. Air Force career as Air Force Space Command's
Director of Training, Standardization and Evaluation where he introduced a completely redesigned
architecture for space operations missions training systems. He holds a Master of Business
Administration from Auburn University and a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from the Air
Force Institute of Technology.
xuu
1996 United States Space Foundation Awards
President Ronald
Reagan congratulating
Doug Morrow on his
successful efforts to
promote America's
space programs.
DOUGLAS S. MORROW PUBUC OUTREACH AWARD
Douglas S. Morrow, born in 1913, was best known for his work in the
entertainment industry. Among the numerous awards bestowed upon him,
Morrow received the Academy Award for Best Screen Play in 1949 for writing
"The Stratton Story," staring Jimmy Stewart and June Allison. Morrow also
received the Golden Dove Award and NAACP Image Award as producer of
the year and motion picture of the year for "Maurie" in 1973. Additionally,
Morrow produced over 200 television programs.
In 1984, at age 71, Morrow climbed Mount Everest to an altitude of 21,000
feet. Interested in Morrow's physical abilities for a man his age, NASA
approached Doug to study the physiological factors involved in such a feat. Morrow entered Astronaut
training and a year later was NASA certified for space flight. Morrow went on to serve on NASA's Advisory
Council and as Co-Chairman of its Subcommittee on Communications. For this work, Morrow was honored
by both NASA and the United States Congress.
In 1991 , the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awarded Morrow its Public Service Award
for his outstanding efforts in supporting the national space program.
Doug Morrow created and produced the United States Space Foundation public service television and radio
campaign, Space Technology - This is What's In It For You. This series of public service announcements
promoted the Earthly benefits of the American space program.
The Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award is presented in memory of the late Douglas S. Morrow;
renown writer, film producer, space advocate and former (J. S. Space Foundation Director; to an individual or
organization for outstanding achievement in the promotion of America's space endeavors.
1996 DOUGLAS S. MORROW PUBLIC OUTREACH TINNER
THE APOLLO 13 MOVIE TEAM
The 1996 Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award is presented to the Apollo 13 movie team — Imagine
Entertainment, MCA Universal Studios, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Astronaut Jim
Lovell and actor Tom Hanks — for producing an extraordinary film about America's early years in space and
its national resolve under pressure.
The Apollo 13 movie brought American space awareness to the highest levels since the great space race of
the 1960's and the Challenger tragedy in 1986. Director and master story-teller Ron Howard and actor Tom
Hanks joined forces to produce an exceptionally emotional and inspiring film. Apollo 13 is about America,
NASA, and the remarkable men and women who dedicated their lives to making this country number one in
space. This story represents all that makes America great and proud, and astronaut Jim Lovell represents
the best of that team. The film would not have been possible without NASA and its tremendous cooperation.
The film was a smash hit because people see adventure in space. It generated significant interest and activity
from the grass-roots to the U.S. Congress. Ron Howard, Imagine Entertainment, Universal Studios, and
Tom Hanks are to be commended for this extraordinary achievement. The United States Space Foundation is
proud to recognize Apollo 1 3 The Movie with this prestigious award.
XD1I1
1996 EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP AWARD
The United States Space Foundation Education Partnership Award was established to recognize exceptional
achievement in promoting excellence in education. If America is to remain competitive in the global
marketplace by retaining a position of leadership in science and technology, our educational systems must
become more effective.
Our young people must be motivated to achieve in education to prepare themselves to live and prosper in the
high-tech society of the information age.
To meet this challenge requires significant direct involvement of others in partnership with educational
institutions. The Education Partnership Award is presented to those who have demonstrated this involvement
working with the United States Space Foundation and who have achieved extraordinary results. Previous
winners are: Allied Signal, 1991; U.S. Air Force Academy, 1992; NASA, 1993; The Aerospace Corporation,
1994; and Team Vandenberg, 1995.
THE 1996 EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP ATARI) WINNER
ESTES INDUSTRIES
The 1996 Education Partnership Award is presented to ESTES Industries for its strong support of K-12
education programs across the country. ESTES Industries has been providing easy-to-use and exciting model
rockets and supporting materials for educators since 1957. ESTES Industries is dedicated to improving
science awareness and education, and largely thanks to their efforts, more than 15,000 science curricula
across the country use model rocketry.
ESTES Industries recently signed a partnership with the United States Space Foundation to work
cooperatively towards improvements in space and science education across the United States.
SPACE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
The United States Space Foundation Space Achievement Award is established to recognize outstanding
achievement in space policy, space professionalism and/or space-related business.
The future of space exploration and exploitation will require the best ideas in technology, industry, and policy.
As humankind leaves earth to inhabit space and other worlds, the lessons of history, science, and the
principles of law and government must go with them.
The Space Achievement Award is presented to those who have demonstrated their dedication to the evolution
of America's space endeavors. Last year's award was presented to Air University.
1996 SPACE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNER
AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY
The 1996 Space Achievement Award is presented to the American Astronautical Society for taking the lead
in establishing a Mational Committee on Space that produced the Space for America statement. This
statement will assist our national leaders in setting a strategic course for our nation s space activities over the
next century and show why we should facilitate growing space activity to help meet our future needs.
The American Astronautical Society is a national professional society exclusively devoted to astronautics.
Through their publications, meetings and symposia, the AAS provides for a continuing exchange of interest
among those whose careers and interests are with astronautics.
CORPORATE MEMBERS
The United States Space Foundation is proud to have the strong support of corporations and individuals who
share the vision of an aggressive, successful American space program leading the world. They believe this
vision is an essential component in ensuring American business leadership in space and technology critical
to keeping our nation successful in an ever more competitive global economy.
CORPORATE MEMBERS
PARTNERS ($10,000 AND UP)
The Aerospace Corporation
Bechtel National, Inc.
EOSAT
Hughes Space & Communications
Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
Orbital Sciences Corporation,
Space & Electronics Systems Group
Rockwell
Space Age, Japan Inc.
Spectrum Astro
TRW Space & Electronics Group
United Technologies Corporation
MEMBERS ($5,000 ■ $9,999)
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
Arianespace
Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
Boeing Defense & Space Group
CTA, Inc.
Harris Corporation
Honeywell, Space Systems Group
KPMG Peat Marwick
Litton Computer Services
PRC, Inc.
Woodmen of the World
ASSOCIATES ($1,000 ■ $4,999)
GTE
1NTEC
Kaman Sciences Corporation
OAO Corporation
SUPPORTING FOUNDATIONS
El Pomar Foundation
Sophron Foundation
Strake Foundation
IN-KIND CORPORATE MEMBERS
FOUNDERS ($50,000 AND UP)
Omni Magazine
PARTNERS ($10,000 • $49,999)
General Growth Properties/Chapel Hills Mall
Space News
MEMBERS ($5,000 - $9,999)
Final Frontier Magazine
Hystar Aerospace Corporation
Technology Utilization Foundation
Pasha Publications
ASSOCIATES ($1,000 ■ $4,999)
Estes Industries
Kopper Investment Management, Inc.
xx
FOUNDER MEMBERS LIFE MEMBERS
Frank Aries William D. Cammarano
John W. Armstrong, Jr. Frank S. Day
Edward G. Austin Keith Ketelsen
Bahman Batmanghelidj Dr John L n ^^
James C. Berger Donald E Smith
Shirley Brown
Spencer Brown j ] earn how to participate as a corporate or indi-
Howard H. "Bo" Callaway vidual contributor, please contact the United States
Robert J. Callow Space Foundation. We will work together to
Joseph Coors achieve mutual goals.
J. Berry Craddock
John Denver
John Egging
Richard H. Faulkner*
Jack Flannery
Dr. Brenda Forman
John E. Fuller
David I. Gies
William J. Hybl
Walter F. Imhoff
John H. James
Gilbert E. Johnson
Ralph W. Kiewit, Jr.
Waiter W. Krueger
William H. Langenberg
O.R LeCompte
Martin List
Harry G. MacLeod
Richard P. MacLeod
Scott A. Manatt
Eugene Mitchell
Joseph Moquin
Jerry Novak
John M. Olin
Robert P. Osborne
Janet B. Pettigrew
Harold A. Poling
J. Gary Seyster
John M. Sommer
Alvin A. Spivak
George W. Strake, Jr.
Virginia Swigert*
Ruth Taylor*
Vernon Taylor*
Sal J. Valentino
Jules Watson
* Deceased
SPONSORS
OFFICIAL SPONSORING PUBLICATION
SPACE NEWS
CO-SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
Aerospace Industries Association
Air Force Space Operations Association
American Astronautical Society
GPS International Association
International Space University
NASA Alumni League
National Space Society
National Security Industrial Association
IN-KIND CONTRIBUTORS
Ad Astra
AT&T Wireless Service
Broadmoor Hotel
Earth Space Review
Ferguson Pontiac
Final Frontier
Freeman Decorating Company
Lewan & Associates Office Technology
OMNI
Phillips Business Information
Sky & Telescope
Via Satellite
THANK YOU TO
Air Force Space Command
NASA Johnson Space Center - for Moon Rock
NORAD
U.S. Air Force Band of the Rockies - Moods in Blue
United States Space Command
COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS
Aerospace Industries Association
Air Force Association
Air Force Space Command
American Astronautical Society
American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
International Space University
NASA Ames Research Center
NASA Headquarters
NASA Johnson Space Center
NASA Office of Advanced Concepts & Technology
NASA Stennis Space Center
National Security Industrial Association
NORAD
Space Calendar
Space Center Houston
Space Transportation Association
United States Space Command
Women in Aerospace
XXII
CORPORATE TABLE SPONSORS
Aerojet
The Aerospace Corporation
Allied Signal Technical Corporation
Analytical Graphics Corporation
The Boeing Defense & Space Group
Computer Sciences Corporation
EOSAT
Honeywell Space Systems Division
Hughes Aircraft Corporation
Hughes Electronics Corporation
Hughes Information Technology Systems
ITT Aerospace/Communications Division
Litton Computer Services
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Loral Federal Systems
McDonnell Douglas
PRC, Inc.
Rockwell
Rockwell - Space Systems Division
Systems Technology Associates, Inc.
TRW Space & Electronics Group
TRW Systems Integration Group
United Technologies Microelectronics Center
Wang Federal, Inc.
Westinghouse Electronics Systems
CO-SPONSORS
EVENT CO-SPONSORS
SPACE TECHNOLOGY HALL OF FAME DINNER
■ % mmm
iiXWW
TUESDAY EVENING OPENING CEREMONY
'1* Rockwell
RECEPTIONS & LUNCHEONS
Tuesday Opening Reception
HUGHES
ELECTRONICS
Wednesday Reception
IPRATT & WHITNEY
Space Propulsion Operations
Thursday Symposium Luncheon
SPECT RUM=
ASTRO =====
Thursday Space Technology Hall of Fame Reception
LOCKHEED MARTIN^
REFRESHMENT BREAKS
SPAC6PORT
SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL
nnc
III
Aerospace/Communications Division
SPACE NEWS
UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION
VOLUNTEERS & STAFF
Volunteers are key to the success of the United States Space Foundation's endeavors. Hundreds
of volunteers work with the Foundation throughout the year. Nearly 200 volunteers are assisting in
the 12th National Space Symposium. We salute and thank them!
VOLUNTEER COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN
Dave Brescia
Keith Calloway
Diane DeGeer
Bob Ewell
Dean Feller
Marty France
Rick Hargrave
Sheila Lemberger
Cynthia McKinley
John Neri
Jim Rix
Pat St. John
Bret Stoneking
Vicki Stoneking
Brad Thome
Frank Wisneski
Speaker Response Team
Transportation Co-Chair
Transportation Co-Chair
Question and Answer
Speaker Response Co-Chair
Speaker Support Co-Chair
Media
Transportation
Speaker Support Co-Chair
Student Tours
Information Booth
Space Support Forum
Security Co-Chair
Security Co-Chair
Speaker Response Co-Chair
Exhibit Support
Staff
MANAGEMENT TEAM
Richard P. MacLeod
Jack Flannery
Chuck Zimkas
Doris Ralston
Jerry Brown, Ph.D.
Darlina Swartz
Beth Ann Lipskin
Holly S. Roberts
Barbara Lauriski
Resident
Executive Director
Director of Operations & Plans
Assistant Director of Operations & Plans
Director of Education
Assistant Director of Education
Director of Communications, Marketing & Development
Director of Finance & Business
Space Discovery Store Manager
STAFF MEMBERS
Carol Butler
Barbara Colclough
Fred Colclough
E. Penryn Flemyng
Debbie High
Laurie Johnson
Pam Matthews
Faye Nicholson
Jane Rasplicka
Nicola Sanchez
Jason Theen
Sarah Tozier
Chris Walker
dj Williams
Assistant Space Discovery Store Manager
Budget Manager
Computer Systems Manager
Education Program Manager
Customer Service Representative
Public Relations Manager
Executive Secretary
Receptionist
Staff Accountant
Accounting Intern
Education Resource Assistant
Administrative Assistant
Communications Intern
Volunteer Coordinator/Administrative Specialist
OPENING CEREMONY
Opening Ceremony— A Dramatized Montage of Tributes
Moderators:
Dr. Jerry Brown
Director of Education
U.S. Space Foundation
Alia Pfantsch
Russian Instructor
U.S. Air Force Academy
E.R Flemyng
Education Program Manager
U.S. Space Foundation
Welcome:
Richard R MacLeod
President
CI.S. Space Foundation
Tribute to Apollo 14 & 15:
General James T. Hill, CJSAF (Ret.)
Chairman of the Board
U.S. Space Foundation
Editor's note: The moderators for the opening cere-
mony (in astronaut suit costumes — one U.S., one
Russian) are: cosmonaut Katya (Alia Pfauntsch), and
astronaut Roger (Dr. Jerry Brown). Mission Control is
an off-stage "big voice" (E. Penryn Flemyng) that
helps with announcing and dialogue. An educational
skit is performed for the audience that includes a golf
cart masquerading as a lunar rover
Roger: Fore!
Katya: Four? Roger, you had at least a six! And the last
two holes you had three over par.
Honoree for Apollo 13 Movie Team:
Captain James A. Lovell, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Commander, Apollo 13
President
Lovell Communications
First Shuttle 15th Anniversary Tribute:
Thomas H. Kennedy
Center Director
L.A. Basin Data Services Center
Rockwell Space Systems Division
Joint Venture in Space:
Dr. Buzz Aldrin
Lunar Module Pilot, Apollo 1 1
Mission HOME:
Captain James A. Lovell, Jr., CISN (Ret.)
Katya: Well that may be an American first, Roger, but
Russia was the first nation to put a satellite into orbit in
1957. And this week, by the way, is a special anniver-
sary for the space program. Do you remember which
one that is, Roger?
Roger: Of course I do. It's the 15th anniversary of
America's first Space Shuttle flight.
Katya: Oh, you Americans have such a short view of
history, Roger. April 12th is the 35th anniversary of the
first man in space. Yuri Gagarin, a Russian, made that
historic mission.
Roger: Well Katya, here in America, fore is a golf term,
and that means watch out, 'cause my ball's gonna be
coming somewhere in your area.
Katya: In Russia, cosmonauts do know how to count
and they do not forget how many shots they had on
the last two holes.
Roger: Oh, yeah. Well, we're really lucky that Alan
Shepard on Apollo 14 taught us how to play golf in
space. He was the first man to play golf in outer
space. Great interstellar golf!
Roger: You're right, Katya, and when we stop to think
about it, that wasn't all that long ago. As they say in
America, we've come a long way, baby.
Katya: Hey! Mission Control, who are all these people
and why are they listening to us? Are they cleared?
Mission Control: Well, Travolta One, you have strayed
off course a bit (no pun intended) and you've ended
up at one of America's finest golf resorts. But in
America, we tend to mix business with pleasure —
which you and Roger seem to have caught onto very
well — and here tonight, is the opening ceremony for
the 12th National Space Symposium. These people
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
are among the world's leaders in space and have gath-
ered to discuss the important issues of our future in
space. It might be something you two would be inter-
ested in.
Katya: That sounds pretty heavy! But, who's in charge
of all that? In Russia, always there is someone in
charge.
Mission Control: The United States Space Foundation
is sponsoring this program, and all the key participants
from government and industry are represented. This
year is extra special because we also have the United
Nations Conference on Space Technology Spinoff
Benefits, with representatives from countries around
the world here with us.
Roger: Hmmm. That sounds even more impressive.
Mission Control, who is this United States Space
Foundation? Do you have something that can tell us
about them?
Mission Control: Roger, Roger. Here is a short video
to do just that.
Editor's note: The video, Promise of Space, is shown.
Following are quotes and a narration from that video:
"Space encompasses everything that you think
about. "
"Space is just such an exciting topic. "
"NASA can be so professional in the way it does its
business that it makes the exciting mundane. We're
trying to make it exciting again for the American
people. "
The United States Space Foundation was founded in
1983 with the goal of promoting national awareness
and support for space endeavors. Most of the people
in America today don't wake up thinking about space.
That wasn't true 25 or 30 years ago.
"As a child I was enraptured with the Mercury,
Gemini and Apollo missions, and assumed every-
body else carried that level of excitement."
"I think we need to work on the next generation. "
To reach the next generation, the U.S. Space
Foundation reached out to America's teachers with an
innovative, one week course.
"My kids love space. "
"More than 5,000 teachers have been through our
training program. "
"So the questions that I was thinking about and
learned about the answers to in "Getting Comfortable
Teaching With Space, I was able to bring to the stu-
dents."
"How do you get into space? Can we live in space?
Would you like to go to space when you grow up?
How do you think you'll get there? And it starts them
thinking about those ideas."
"Kids need role models. Astronauts are great role
models. They're real heroes and heroines. They risk
their lives for what they believe in. "
"This is where it starts. Their creative ideas that start
now will grow. "
"When you've got excited teachers and excited kids,
you get excited parents. It works. "
Many people don't know much about space beyond
Neil Armstrong landing on the moon. So the U.S.
Space Foundation opened a space store to reach out
to the public. Here people can learn about spinoffs,
technologies that were developed for use in space and
adapted for use here on Earth.
"Cordless drilb originally were designed by the Black
and Decker Company for use on the moon. What we
wanted to do was drill down through the moon's
soil, but we didn't have any electric lines ninning
across the surface of the moon. So what they did
was put batteries in these drilb and use them on the
moon. "
"The American people experience everyday tremen-
dous benefits from the space program and most don't
even know about it. "
"If you look at medical science, for example, one of
the main spinoffs that has recently come about is the
cool suits. Cool suit garments which were designed
OPENING CEREMONY
to keep the astronauts cool in the high heat space
environment are now being adapted down here on
Earth for individuals with multiple sclerosis, [or indi-
viduals who work in high heat environment like fire-
fighters. "
"Spinoffs have far exceeded what NASA thought they
would originally do. "
"The best example of using space for national securi-
ty recently was the Gulf War. It was one of the most
intense wars we've had in this half century, and it
was decisive and it was space that made it possible. "
Space technology spinoffs have reached every corner
of the globe and now the U.S. Space Foundation
reaches space professionals around the world.
"Conquering the final frontier is drawing experts from
the space industry to Colorado Springs. "
"The National Space Symposium has become the
mecca for the professionals in space throughout the
world. "
"Our annual National Space Symposium is a Who's
Who in space. The top people are there. They're
speaking, they're accessible, you can come and hear
the latest thinking, the latest controversies. "
"The visionary people who started the Space
Foundation believed that the American people had to
know more about their own program. "
"The U.S. Space Foundation is about excitement, it's
about realism. It's about what really happens in our
daily lives. "
"I think space opens for us a huge vista of energy
and resources, and it allows mankind to do what
mankind does best, which is to explore the unknown.
That's why we should be looking toward the future in
space. Space is our future. "
Katya: Wow! That was pretty good. In Russia, we also
believe space is our future. You know, maybe we need
a space foundation over there to bring all these people
together to play golf.
Roger: Katya, I think you missed the point. They are
here to mix business with pleasure, not to mix pleasure
with business or pleasure with golf. Anyway, you'd
think this United States Space Foundation would have
somebody here to tell us about who they are and what
they do, wouldn't you?
Katya: Yeah. Mission Control, what about that?
Mission Control: Roger, Roger— and Katya. Ladies
and gentlemen, the president of the United States
Space Foundation, Mr. Richard R MacLeod.
Mr. MacLeod: Thank you, Mission Control, and good
evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of our distin-
guished board of directors and our staff and many vol-
unteers, welcome to the 12th National Space
Symposium. It's called "Space: Enhancing Life on
Earth." That's our theme of this year's symposium.
International cooperation is the underlying principle.
As exemplified by our dynamic duo of cosmonaut and
astronaut who are moderating this evening, space has
become more than ever, a global endeavor. It is truly
an international pursuit.
As Neil Armstrong said when he made that first
step onto the moon, "It's a giant leap for mankind."
Space indeed holds the future for all of humankind
and now, nearly 40 years after that first Sputnik, we are
at the threshold of some marvelous adventures in
space. And the most exciting part is that we have
made this transition from the early days of the great
space race between competing superpowers, to inter-
national cooperation so more resources are focused in
a truly global effort.
On that note, I would like especially to wel-
come our United Nations Conference participants and
other international guests here tonight. With a special
welcome to the conference host, Dr. Adigun Ade
Abiodun of the United Nations' Office of Outer Space
in Vienna. We're also honored to have with us U.S.
Representative Douglas Peterson from Florida.
A special welcome to our Colorado Springs
community guests. The support for the Foundation
locally is important and we offer this evening as a
small token of our appreciation.
I'd like to recognize now, Lt. Gen. Paul Stein,
superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy, and his
wife, Carol.
Reflecting the community support that we
have, and perhaps representative of a great spirit, I'd
like to give special recognition now to Mr. John
Thorpe, chairman of Analytical Surveys Inc., and his
wife, Rosemary. They established a charitable remain-
der trust to equally benefit three universities and the
United States Space Foundation. This is a great exam-
ple of the tangible financial support as well as the
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
moral support we receive from our community and
which we prize. We hope that others will follow their
example.
Of course, the participants of the symposium
are what this is all about, so a warm welcome to all of
you. We have an impressive line-up of sessions with
the leading space decision-makers from around the
world. They're here to challenge your preconceptions
over the next few days. And with all the available space
sold out last September, the exhibits this year are big-
ger and better than ever. You can see them during the
reception following this program.
The U.S. Space Foundation is fortunate to
have a truly distinguished board of directors, many of
whom are here tonight. They give their time and
finance their own travel to come and help us with their
own thoughts and with their introductions to others. To
each of you, our directors, thank you for everything
that you continue to do and will do in the future.
Finally, America indeed needs real heroes rather
than just sports figures and movie stars.
Kids need role models. Kids and adults need
examples of courage and dedication.
Finally, America indeed needs real heroes
rather than just sports figures and movie stars. Kids
need role models. Kids and adults need examples of
courage and dedication. History is full of examples of
heroes who have influenced the outcome of world
events. Well, we have some of those people here
tonight — our American astronauts. A warm welcome
to all of you. They will be introduced to you tonight in
the course of the program.
With that, Mission Control, over to you.
Mission Control: Roger, Roger. Katya, Mission
Control. Dick mentioned the early days of the space
program and the race to the moon. In keeping with
the symposium tradition of recognizing the anniver-
saries of those milestones in space history, we have
some of the family members of the Apollo 14 and 15
missions here tonight. Would you and Roger please
escort them onto the stage?
Katya: Roger, Mission Control. Perhaps you could
show this very distinguished audience a brief summary
of those exciting times.
Editor's note: At this point a video of the Apollo 14
and 15 missions is shown with Mission Control nar-
rating. Following is that narration.
Mission Control: Well Katya, Apollo 14 launched in
January 1971 as the fifth American mission to the
moon, with Alan Shepard, Stuart Roosa, and Ed
Mitchell. It made the third landing on the moon in the
Fra Maro Highlands, the intended destination of Apollo
13. Everyone remembers Alan Shepard's golf swing in
which he tried to set a record for the longest drive. In
fact, he only had a 20-yard drive.
Then Apollo 15 departed for the moon in July
1971 with Dave Scott, Al Worden and Jim Irwin. Jim
Irwin and Dave Scott landed at Hadley Rille and were the
first two to drive the Lunar Rover around the surface.
Roger: It's hard to believe that was just 25 years ago.
Mission Control, Roger here, do we have anything to
help these people remember this fine mission and
commemorative event?
Mission Control: Roger, Roger. Ladies and gentlemen,
the chairman of the board of the United States Space
Foundation, General James E. Hill, USAF, (Ret).
Gen. Hill: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Let
me add my warm welcome to all of you and reinforce
what Dick has already said about the exciting program
we have lined up for you this week.
But as we deal with contemporary space issues
and debate how best to meet the challenges of the
future, it is important to pause and remember those upon
whose shoulders we are building our future in space.
The great space race of the 60s and 70s was
exciting. It was thrilling. It was adventurous. And it was
dangerous and costly. We owe a great debt of grati-
tude to those who ran that race and to the people who
supported them — especially their families.
Tonight, although the Apollo 14 and 15 astro-
nauts themselves could not be here, some family
members are. I am proud to present them with the
U.S. Space Foundation commemorative trophies for
their courage and true dedication to the ideals of our
space program. The others will receive their mementos
later. Joan Roussa, wife of Stuart Roussa and her
daughter, Rosemary.
Mrs. Roussa: Thank you. On behalf of my late hus-
band, who thought there was nothing more important
than the exploration of space and was so pleased to be
a part of it, I thank you.
Rosemary Roussa: It's a pleasure for us to be here
tonight and honor my father on the Apollo 14 twenty-
fifth anniversary. We're glad that we can represent him
here tonight. Thank you.
OPENING CEREMONY
Gen. Hill: And Joe Irwin, Jim Irwin's son.
Katya: That was really pretty good. You know, you
Americans are really into celebration and recognition.
But the 60s and 70s were pretty exciting times for us
as well. Something about competition gets people
stirred up — right Comrade General?
Gen. Hill: That's right, Katya. But you know, public
awareness is important even when we aren't in a fierce
competition. The public should know what's going on
in space today just as much as they did back then.
The U.S. Space Foundation encourages that in
several ways, one of which is through the Douglas S.
Morrow Public Outreach Award. This annual award,
created in the memory of one our late directors, is pre-
sented to the people and organizations that have made
a significant contribution to increasing the public
awareness of space. This year's award is being pre-
sented to the Apollo 13 movie team.
Mot since the heydays of the 60s and 70s has
such enthusiasm for space been generated as with the
remarkable film directed by Ron Howard and starring
Tom Hanks. The film epitomizes the spirit of the space
race and the character of the men and women who
dedicated their lives to its success. It shows the team-
work and resourcefulness that is present even today as
we cooperatively pursue each greater space achieve-
ment.
Here is a reminder of the film I am sure you all
have enjoyed this past year.
Editor's note: A short clip of the Apollo 13 movie is
shown at this time.
Here tonight to accept the award on behalf of
Universal Studios, Imagine Entertainment, NASA, and
the entire team is Apollo 13 Commander, Navy Capt.
Jim Lovell.
Jim, you and the Apollo 13 movie team
brought America's space awareness to new levels with
that marvelous film. More than that, the film's mes-
sage reminded America of its greatness and reinforced
its leadership role in this rapidly changing world.
We all need to be reminded regularly of who
we are and where we are headed, lest we become too
engrossed in the day-to-day matters and, as a society,
lose sight of the important role space plays in our
future.
On behalf of the United States Space
Foundation, please accept this recognition of the
extraordinary contributions you, Imagine
Entertainment, Universal, and NASA made to the
cause of space awareness.
Capt. Lovell: Thank you Jim Hill. I agree, the Apollo
13 movie was successful beyond my wildest dreams.
When Jeffrey Kluger and I decided to write the book, it
was to keep a commitment to Jack Swigert. As many
of you know, the U.S. Space Foundation was originally
dedicated to Jack's memory. Then, when Imagine
Entertainment decided to make a film from the book,
of course we really got excited.
Only master storyteller Ron Howard could bring
the story to life and recreate the drama as it really hap-
pened. And I don't know anyone that could have put
more heart into being a young Jim Lovell than Tom
Hanks. The thrill of working with those two — and all the
others, too — rivaled the actual mission many years ago.
Of course, neither the mission nor the movie
would have been possible without NASA and all the
professionals who continue to dedicate their profes-
sional careers to the important business of keeping
America moving in space. We are indeed fortunate to
have that kind of leadership and drive as part of our
American heritage.
On behalf of all those I just mentioned, thank
you very much.
Not since the heydays of the 60s and 70s has
such enthusiasm for space been generated as
with the remarkable film directed by Ron Howard
and starring Tom Hanks. The film epitomizes the
spirit of the space race and the character of the
men and women who dedicated
their lives to its success.
Mission Control: Katya, Mission Control.
Katya: Roger, Mission Control, go ahead.
Mission Control: We Americans do seem to view that
Apollo era as the heyday of the space program. What
was Russia thinking at the time?
Katya: Well, we of course had planned to be the first
on the moon. But then, we refocused our efforts to
much longer-term experience, learning how to live and
work in space. Our Soyuz spacecraft was very much
like your Apollo module. And we were perfecting our
automatic docking capabilities in space.
Roger: It was only a little over 20 years ago that
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
America and Russia accomplished the historic first
handshake in space. Yeah, I remember it was Tom
Stafford, Vance Brand and Deke Slayton, and they
were in an Apollo capsule with a Soyuz spacecraft
docking up there in orbit. But in those days neither
country really had much trust in the other one.
Katya: And it would be years later before true cooper-
ation happened.
Roger: Well, while the Russians were concentrating on
living and working in space with their cosmonauts in
their space station, we were really working on a
reusable space vehicle. America focused on this space
vehicle which we now call the shuttle. But as with most
pioneering efforts, it took until 1981 before John
Young and Bob Crippen could actually get that shuttle
into space — Columbia — and it was a marvelous
machine.
Mission Control, do we have anything to
remind this fine group of people about the excitement
that mission caused?
We are living in very exciting times for space
exploration. Not just because we are becoming
more capable in getting there, but rather
because we are no longer competing in non-pro-
ductive ways, we are now cooperating on an
international level better than ever before.
Mission Control: Roger, Roger. House lights are com-
ing down.
Editor's note: A video clip on the 15th anniversary
of the first shuttle flight is shown.
Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, from
Rockwell Space Systems Division, Mr. Tom Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy: It's hard to imagine but it's true. That
first shuttle flight took place 15 years ago this coming
Friday — and what a thrill it was.
In the 1970s our national space interest had
shifted from space exploration to space use, and the
translation of technology into practical products and
services.
To do this new job, NASA needed a new vehi-
cle — one that could fly over and over and carry work-
ing crews and tons of cargo into Earth orbit. Reus-
ability, versatility, reliability, and efficiency were the
requirements. Space Shuttle was the answer.
The Rockwell team was given the major task
of producing a new breed of spacecraft for the nation.
We developed and built the six shuttle orbiters and
main engines, but that's only the beginning of our
contributions. We also helped NASA integrate the
shuttle system, maintain the technical integrity and
configuration, meet the logistics requirements and
provide operations support for the shuttle fleet.
The 76 shuttle missions since April 12, 1981,
attest to Rockwell's unique role in America's space tri-
umphs as the premier supplier of space systems and
services which have substantially advanced the fron-
tiers of space.
And now, Dick will you please join me on the
stage?
In commemoration of this 15-year milestone,
Rockwell is pleased to present to the United States
Space Foundation this 1:50 scale model of America's
Space Shuttle to use in advancing its important mis-
sion of promoting national awareness and support
for America's space endeavors.
Editor's note: The shuttle model is unveiled at this time.
Mr. MacLeod: Thank you, Tom. Rockwell has been a
key partner in America's space effort and we appreci-
ate all the great support you've given the U.S. Space
Foundation over the years. We will certainly put this
newest contribution to good use.
Katya: Wow! 1 thought the Russians spent a lot of time
looking back at the past. Do you spend lots of time
looking into today and the future? After all, that's
where we're all going to spend the rest of our lives.
Roger: That's right, Katya, but remembering the past
is important to doing the future right. And this has
been sort of setting the stage for what I understand
Mission Control has in store for us next.
We are living in very exciting times for space
exploration. Not just because we are becoming more
capable in getting there, but rather because we are no
longer competing in non-productive ways, we are now
cooperating on an international level better than ever
before.
Mission Control, are you still there?
Mission Control: Roger, Roger.
Roger: Can you pull up another video and inform the
folks what I'm talking about?
Mission Control: Roger, here's another video.
OPENING CEREMONY
Editor's note: At this time a video, 'Joint Venture in
Space" is presented. Following is the narration from
that video.
Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, one of the
first two men to walk on the moon, Astronaut Buzz
Aldrin.
These groups of engineers are more than
8,000 miles apart, working together on the same prob-
lems, to devise and build a docking system that will
join America's Space Shuttle Atlantis to the Russian
Space Shuttle, MIR, in an historic series of missions
that have already begun.
A rendezvous and docking in space has all the
elements of a graceful ballet, until you consider the
size and weight of the dancers and their fragility in this
hostile environment. Current plans for Russian and
American cooperation in space are long term. This
time, the rendevous and docking of Atlantis and MIR
will join Russia and the United States in the greatest
international joint venture of all time. Multiple space
missions between American shuttles and the MIR
Space Station that will lead to construction of the
International Space Station, with partners from a num-
ber of nations around the world. And this time, Bruce
Brandt and Vladimir Syromiatnikov are working togeth-
er again to design and build the vital docking system.
Brandt as chief engineer of the Oribter Docking
Module for Rockwell, the U.S. contractor, and
Syromiatnikov as chief of large deployable space struc-
tures and electromechanical systems for the Russian
RSC, Energia, a sub-contractor to Rockwell.
Perfecting such a sophisticated device across
half the world has not been easy. Both the shuttle and
MIR are equipped with the Russian designed system.
Development testing of dynamic performance led to
modifications for damping, to accommodate the large
masses of the orbiter and the MIR. Mechanical cycling
and loadings revealed several problems that resulted in
redesign, and the system electrical integration required
changes so that existing U.S. and Russian hardware
could be compatible.
The Space Shuttle commander must align the
shuttle docking mechanism with that of the MIR,
maneuvering the massive shuttle with its thrusters and
using this docking target as his guide. The mechanism
is in the ready-to-dock position. As the shuttle
approaches the MIR, thrusters on the shuttle acceler-
ate the big craft to bring the docking quarts into con-
tact at the final moment. Hundreds of hours of simula-
tion and tests by both American and Russian engi-
neers and technicians are helping guarantee mission
success and to bridge the huge separations of time,
distance and language.
There are no boundaries in space, and from
space no boundaries visible on Earth. Russian and
American spacecraft will meet in friendship and coop-
eration in this joint venture in space.
Dr. Aldrin: Thank you, Mission Control. Good evening,
everyone. We've spent some time looking back at our
brief history in space tonight and as our good friend,
Roger the astronaut, here said a few minutes ago,
that's important to doing the future right. That video
did a marvelous job of demonstrating how we are
indeed learning from the past and doing better in the
future. International cooperation is how our human
species is going to advance in space. And I couldn't be
happier to see America's finest up there docked with
the MIR Space Station working and learning together.
As most of you know, Colorado Springs' own Ron
Sega and his wife Bonnie Dunbar have both visited
MIR in this last year. Ron just returned from his last
mission there a week ago Saturday. He really tried to
be here tonight but his debriefing schedule just would-
n't allow that. And Bonnie was here — I talked to her
earlier today— but she's now en route back to Houston
for an early work call tomorrow morning.
A rendezvous and docking in space has all the
elements of a graceful ballet, until you consider
the size and weight of the dancers and their
fragility in this hostile environment.
On their behalf, and really I think I speak for all the
astronauts, current and of my generation, let me say
what a marvelous thing it is to see Russia and the
United States cooperating today, rather than compet-
ing as we did in the past. I can't stress enough the
importance of our continued pursuit of space accom-
plishments as a human species.
And no event does it better than this National
Space Symposium. The theme, Enhancing Life on
Earth, and the international flavor this year, particularly
with the United Nations Conference integrated into the
program, is what it's all about. And I must commend
the Gnited States Space Foundation for its great work
in pulling it all together. Working together toward a
brighter future is what it's all about. Not just for the
fortunate few like Ron Sega, Bonnie Dunbar, Jim
Lovell and me, and, of course, Katya and Roger, but as
nations of this global village so that someday the
human species will have a much better life. As the
theme of this symposium puts it so well, space is
enhancing life here on Earth. And our living and work-
ing there is what will continue to make life better and
better. It's a pleasure and a privilege for me to be here
tonight, and I'm looking forward to the next few days
of discussions. Thank you very much.
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Katya: That was just beautiful! I couldn't have said it
better. I couldn't have said it at all just a few years ago
because our countries didn't have the openness and
interest in cooperation, right?
In any case, it's such a shame more people
don't have an opportunity to hear and understand how
important it is for us — for all of us to work together
and push the boundaries of technology. If there were
only a way to get the story to more people . . .
Yes, Apollo 13 brought three astronauts home
safely. But for average Americans, what does the
space program today bring home to their fami-
lies, to their world? What promotes their values?
Capt. Lovell: Well, Katya, There is a program
designed to do just that. Planning for it was initiated by
the United States Space Foundation here at this very
symposium last year. An alliance, including the CI. S.
Space Foundation, the National Space Society and 16
of the leading aerospace companies, is implementing
this program through an international professional
communications firm, Fleishman-Hillard. I am the
chairman of this new multi-year program called
Mission HOME — Harvesting Opportunities for Mother
Earth — and we just had the kick-off event starting this
program at the Air and Space Museum in Washington,
D.C., two weeks ago.
Katya: That sounds wonderful. Can you tell us more
about that?
Capt. Lovell: I'm glad you asked. America's space
community — civilian, military, commercial — has com-
mitted itself to a new, multi-year program of apprecia-
tion and support called Mission HOME. As an astro-
naut who had some pretty exciting times up there, I
know the American public finds the space program
very exciting. But after a shuttle launch, or a dramatic
new discovery by the Hubble Telescope — or even after
a couple of white knuckle hours watching Apollo 13 —
for most Americans it's back to the real world, their
jobs, and their hectic day-to-day lives.
Yes, Apollo 13 brought three astronauts home
safely. But for average Americans, what does the space
program today bring home to their families, to their
world? What promotes their values?
Those of us in the space community, know the
answers. We know that every dollar spent in this day of
strict priorities and stricter budgets returns much more
to our lives and to our society. But do others know
that? Have we made ourselves clear? Have we demon-
strated our value well enough to earn the support we
deserve? We owe it to ourselves and the public to be
sure the answer to those questions is a resounding
"yes."
This program is a challenge to all of us. It is
our call to action. Space is critical to our future. Our
challenge is to show that however far we reach, howev-
er distant the frontiers we cross, the mission of the
U.S. space community can be found right here at
home. Every mission outward is a mission home.
Bringing home a richer, better, safer, healthier,
more secure life. Predicting local weather. Assuring
national security. Providing news from around the
world and supporting business transactions between
global markets. Hastening advances in medicine and
technology. These are the everyday dividends of space.
However, now more than ever . . . the space
community must prove its value to a skeptical
American public, distracted by competing priorities
and accustomed to the miracles of space. Only by
engaging in a national dialogue can our mission suc-
ceed.
That is what Mission HOME intends to do — to
take space to the American people — to build under-
standing, enthusiasm and support for our G.S. space
efforts. Our goal is not only to teach Americans about
space, but to learn from them how space endeavors
can do a better job of increasing human knowledge
and improving life on Earth.
As chairman of the Mission HOME program, I
am confident that we will be able to earn America's
support as we move into the 21st century. And we will
have a lot of help in this cause. We are in the process
of assembling an advisory board that represents a true
cross section of America from all walks of life — medi-
cine, sports, business, education, science, politics,
defense, and entertainment. And 1 plan to work with
this group to achieve three key goals.
First, to inform Americans of the many ways
space improves our lives here on Earth.
Second, to rekindle the excitement of discovery
and the desire to push back the edge of our knowl-
edge.
Third, through the town halls and other public
dialogues, to give the American public more input into
the programs and goals of the space community.
If America backs away from space, in any way,
we will pay a high price. We will cede leadership to
others in perhaps the No. 1 can't-miss growth industry
of the 21st century. We will jeopardize our ability to
protect G.S. priorities in the new world order. Space is
the greatest bridge to a peaceful world that we will ever
know. Space technology — and its potential to improve
human life — is the Peace Corps of the 21st century. It
is perhaps the most valuable tool America has to offer
developing nations. And we should do that.
OPENING CEREMONY
The teachers of this nation have found that
space is a great educational tool. Their programs are
not designed simply to make future astronauts or
space scientists, but to take advantage of the natural
fascination that kids have for space. If we don't use
space effectively at home, we will deny ourselves a vast
opportunity that is improving life in many, many ways
here on Earth. But perhaps most important of all, we
will back away from the single biggest challenge of all
time — the ultimate quest to take humankind far
beyond our planet. We cannot default on our pioneer
legacy — we must continue to lead the quest for knowl-
edge that defines humankind.
And, with this Mission HOME program, we are
taking specific steps to ensure that space endeavors
remain an integral part of the American experience.
Now here's a short video that captures the fla-
vor of this exciting new program — Mission HOME.
Mission Control, can you run that last video clip here
for us, please?
Mission Control: Roger, Jim. Here it comes.
Editor's note: The Mission HOME video is shown at
this time with quotes from John F. Kennedy, Ronald
Reagan, newsmen and astronauts, plus newsclips
from various launches.
Capt. Lovell: To conclude this evening's opening cere-
mony, we want to have a little fun. When I travel
around the country talking with the American people, I
have found that space is still fun and is very exciting.
And when we did the kick-off event at the Air and
Space Museum a couple of weeks ago, we had some
fun with a countdown. A group of school children were
on hand to help.
Mission Control, since kids represent our
future, can you help me get a group of them out here
to assist me with a countdown?
Capt. Lovell: OK, kids. You ready for the countdown?
Mission Control: Jim, shouldn't everyone join in on
this one?
Capt. Lovell: Absolutely. Why don't we start with one
of my personal heroes, one of America's first moon
walkers. Buzz, why don't you come up here?
Katya: And Gen. Jim Hill, the chairman of the U.S.
Space Foundation. General, come up here.
Roger: And Mr. Dick MacLeod, president of the United
States Space Foundation.
If we don't use space effectively at home, we
will deny ourselves a vast opportunity that
is improving life in many, many ways here
on Earth.
Mission Control: The families of the Apollo 14 and 15
missions.
Katya: Mr. Tom Kennedy from Rockwell Space
Systems Division.
Capt. Lovell: Mission Control, as chairman of the new
Mission HOME campaign, I'd like to ask you to initiate
the countdown to "Take Up Space."
Mission Control: Roger, Jim. Ladies and gentlemen,
boys and girls, please join astronaut Jim Lovell and all
his colleagues on stage with him in a countdown to
"Take tip Space." Ready? Ten, nine, eight, seven, six,
five, four, three, two, one, zero — take up space!
Mission Control: There is nothing Mission Control
wouldn't do for you, Jim. You know that from personal
experience, don't you? OK, kids, let's get on out here
and help Capt. Lovell with his latest requirement.
Editor's note: At this point group of children form
Foothills Elementary School in Colorado Springs sur-
round Jim, Roger, and Katya at center stage.
Roger: This is our future — kids, children of all ages,
from all countries. This is the future looking at you
and we hope for them a better life just as your parents
have worked for a better life for you.
Editor's note: A slide saying "Take Up Space" on
screen flashes as the countdown finishes.
Mission Control: (Ah, oh! Colorado Springs, we have a
problem. All personnel must immediately evacuate the
stage area. I say again, all personnel must immediately
evacuate the stage area. And everyone remain calm
and remain in your seats. We have just received notice
of an alien spacecraft making an approach to the
stage landing site.
Editor's note: A spacecraft (Hystar) appears from the
back of the room and flies to center stage where it is
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
engulfed in smoke and light.
Mission Control: tin, Roger, Katya. We are receiving
signals that they want you to join them on some galac-
tic links to improve their understanding of this strange
earthly activity called golf.
Editor's note: The moderators "board" the spacecraft.
Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, boys and
girls, We need one more countdown to launch this
craft with our two wonderful moderators, Roger and
Katya, to Take Gp Space please. Ten, nine, eight,
seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero.
Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, that con-
cludes the opening ceremony for the 12th National
Space Symposium. Thanks to all of you for joining us
here tonight. Thanks to some of America's true heroes
for taking part in our tribute to this country's achieve-
ments in space. And especially thanks to Rockwell for
co-sponsoring the opening to make it possible to give
meaningful tribute to those we honored tonight.
Now please join us next door at Colorado Hall
for a reception among the latest aerospace exhibits on
display.
10
Using Space to Enhance Life on Earth
USING SPACE TO ENHANCE LIFE ON EARTH
Opening Steven R Scott
Remarks: Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space Systems Division
Introduction: Richard R MacLeod
President
U.S. Space Foundation
Keynote Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan
Address: Chairman
Government of India, Department
of Space,
Indian Space Research Organization
Mr. Scott: Good morning. On behalf of the United
States Space Foundation and all of our sponsors, wel-
come to the 12th National Space Symposium. I'm
Steven Scott from Rockwell Space Systems Division,
and I'll be your program moderator over the next three
days as we explore this year's exciting theme of
"Space: Enhancing Life on Earth." The Foundation
would like to thank our sponsors for last night's activi-
ties, Rockwell for the opening ceremony, and Hughes
for co-sponsoring the reception. But first, a message
from one of our sponsors.
Editor's note: A video on Rockwell's space related
industry is shown.
Mr. Scott: Thank you. Now let's take a quick look at
what's in store for us for the rest of the week. This
morning, in our keynote address and first session, we'll
take a macro look at space applications. This after-
noon we'll take a more detailed look at Earth sensing,
communication and navigation applications, followed
by a very interesting session on why it's important to
reinvigorate the space industry with "better, cheaper,
faster" methodologies. Our reception this evening will
be co-sponsored by United Technologies and the
Space Foundation.
Going onto tomorrow's agenda, Gen. Joseph
Ashy has assembled a number of key Department of
Defense leaders who will guide us through discussion
of global security interests in space. For lunch our fea-
tured speaker is NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, who
no doubt will have some provocative insight on the
future of the U.S. civil space program. The afternoon
session will start off with a look at the International
Space Station, as well as some space launch capability
issues. The evening reception will be sponsored by
Lockheed Martin, as well as the U.S. Space
Foundation. Then we have the Space Technology Hall
of Fame dinner and induction ceremony, where the
address will be made by the distinguished chairman of
TRW, Joe Gorman. Capping off our session on Friday
we have presentations by Lionel Johns, better known
as "Skip," and Sen. Jake Gam. We will also be record-
ing a radio-TV program called "Tech Nation," hosted
by Dr. Moira Gunn.
Before we begin, let me open with this
thought. In the early '60s there was a cartoon family
that epitomized the theme of this conference, which is
"Space: Enhancing Life on Earth." For this family,
space and everything associated with it was mundane.
They had conquered the final frontier. People lived and
worked in orbital stations, honeymooners went to
Venus instead of the Poconos. The family I'm talking
about of course is the Jetsons. For a generation the
Jetsons helped shaped America's views of space and
what life would be like in the 21st century. Computers,
communications robotics and access to space would
clearly play a dominant role in our day-to-day exis-
tence. As we now look back over the last 30 years, we
can chart our progress. We've made unbelievable
strides in computer technology, satellite communica-
tions, and robotics, but easy access to space is still
slightly beyond our reach. Maybe our early visions of
space were too grandiose, but with the accomplish-
ments of Apollo, the nation believed anything was pos-
sible. These cartoon characters may seem fictitious,
but they helped form our early visions and thoughts.
And that's exactly what we're doing here — helping to
shape a vision, looking ahead. Over the next three
days, we'll take a realistic look at what we're doing in
space today as we work to constantly reshape our
vision of the future. With that, let us begin the 12th
National Space Symposium. Here to introduce the
keynote speaker is the president of the United States
Space Foundation. Ladies and gentlemen, please wel-
come Dick MacLeod.
Mr. MacLeod: Thank you. Our first speaker today is
Dr. Kasturirangan. For simplicity I will call him Dr.
Rangan. He will expand on the conference theme in
his keynote address. He's currently the chairman of
the Indian Space Research Organization, chairman of
the Space Commission of India, and secretary of the
Department of Space of the Government of India. Dr.
Rangan is a well known space scientist and technolo-
gist of international repute. He has led the Indian
Space Program through a series of successful launch-
es. These include four communications satellites, five
remote sensing satellites, and a scientific satellite. The
latest being the successful launch of IRSP3 aboard the
11
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
"The gods
did not revedl to men
all thingsin th^fceginning, but,
in the course; ot^time,
by searching,
they find out better"
Using Space to Enhance Life on Earth
Fig. CIS-101
Indian polar satellite launch vehicle. As a gifted leader,
he has placed a strong emphasis on orienting the
Indian Space Program towards socio-economic devel-
opment of his country, making it a model for develop-
ing nations. When I visited last September, we talked
exactly about that, the fact that they have representa-
tives from every department of their government in
their own agency, and vice versa. They work hard at
applications, enhancing life on Earth. Dr. Rangan.
Dr. Kasturirangan: Thank you, Dick, for the kind
introduction. Mr. Aldridge, Dr. Silvestrini, Mr. Minor, Mr.
Gianelli, Mr. Takada, distinguished members of the
audience, ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is my
proud privilege to be invited to the G. S. Space
Foundation to address this very distinguished gather-
ing today as the keynote speaker. I would like to
express, using this opportunity, my gratitude to the
(J.S. Space Foundation and the other co-sponsors of
this meeting, and in particular, Dick, for giving me this
opportunity.
The theme for this talk, "Using Space to
Enhance the Life on Earth," is certainly timely.
Something which is of concern, and we need to really
emphasize this aspect of the concern, as well as the
strategies and directions one should look for to deal
with this issue of enhancing the quality of life on Earth,
in the context of several emerging technologies.
Man, whose ancestry could be traced across
the whole geological era into a creature not greater
than the diminutive rat, and whose intellectual powers
began to be strikingly prophetic only during the last ice
age, deserves the generic title he has given to himself,
"the homo sapien" — man-the-wise. While primitive
man was happy when his basic needs were taken care
of, using what was available in nature, the increasing
demand on natural resources along with the instinct
to improve the quality of life forced man to use his
intelligence and skill. Quests for scientific exploration
followed; important discoveries were made. The use of
12
QUALITY OF LIFE
INDICATORS
HUMAN INDICATORS
Ufa Expectancy
Infant Mortality
Calorie Intake
Purchasing Power
Knowledge
Living Conditions
-aOGtOPOUTICAL
Peace & Harmony
Justice & Fairness
Equality
Security
People's participation
Stability
Level of satisfaction
Infrastructure! Development
NATURAL RESOURCES
Resource availability & Accessibility
Environmental safety
Disaster preparedness
Suit a inability
Carrying capacity
Fig. US- 102
science and technology for improving the quality of life
became a pattern. In the 20th century, one of the
greatest and most significant acts of humans has been
the use of space in this context, not only for scientific
exploration, but also for such other areas like meteo-
rology and weather systems, extracting information on
other sources, improving human connectivity, and so
on and so forth. It is in this context that we look at
what we are doing currently, particularly in the case
of developing countries. We have adopted these tech-
niques for ensuring national development. I could not
do more, at this stage, to do justice to this aspect
of aspiration than to quote from the observations
of Xenophanes, who made this statement 2,500 years
ago: "The gods did not reveal to man all things in the
beginning, but in the course of time, by searching,
they find out better [Fig. CIS-101]." So that is the con-
stant drive to Earth's improving the quality of life. And
in that case, then we should really look at: what is the
quality of life? The quality of life, of course, in a differ-
ent era and a different context assumes a different
meaning. It can be as varied as an individual and a
society, or as complex as the human body itself. What
we'll try to do here is to bring out some aspects of this
[Fig. US- 102]. In fact, for the primitive man, the quali-
ty of life was nothing but meeting his basic needs. The
standards of measurement of the societal well-being,
as well as means of improving the quality of life, has
undergone dramatic changes with time. A look at the
global scenario brings this aspect — the variation and
the quality of life due to varied reasons, ranging from
cultural and socio-political factors, to environment and
technological considerations. That's what we tried to
put in this particular slide, the human indicators that
would define the quality of life, some of the social
aspects, the natural resources aspect, things like the
life expectancy or the infant mortality, the living condi-
tions, or in the case of natural resources, the resource
management, the environmental implications, disaster
preparedness, and when it comes to socio-political
aspects, peace and tranquility and infrastructure and
so many other aspects. We have tried to put together
USING SPACE TO ENHANCE LIFE ON EARTH
here a kind of scenario which puts the quality of life
and the perspective which most of the people would
accept as possible indicators.
Taking from this, what kind of challenges today
does humankind face? We go through a set of chal-
lenges that humankind is facing, the context of which
we will look into many of the aspects of the space
techniques today. The first in that series of challenges
deals with the human population. The world popula-
tion, as we all know, doubled from 2 billion to 5 billion
in the 1950 to 1987 time frame. It is expected to reach
6.4 billion by the end of this century. What is interest-
ing is the fact that the 300 million population in the
beginning of the 1st century would have increased 21
fold by the time we enter the 21st century, and half of
it will turn out to be in the urban areas. Apart from the
increase in numbers, the proper development of this
human resource is a major issue. In developing coun-
tries, on an average, student enrollment is less than 70
percent, and only 50 percent of them reach the sec-
ondary level. The percentage of students who reach
the tertiary level is hardly 6 percent of the primary
enrollment. Added to these are the poor student-
teacher ratio and the low investment in education.
While UNESCO recommends 4 percent of GMP as
educational expenditure, in reality it varies from 0.5 to
12 percent. The fact that the population in 2000 AD
will consist of 2.5 billion children in the age group of 5
- 24, calls for the adoption of modern technologies
such as space based distance education to realize the
goal of universal education.
While concentrating on formal education to the
children, we need to recognize the need for informal
education to other sectors too, particularly women.
There are a number of examples where women's edu-
cation has brought tremendous improvements. For
example, in an assessment that has been made with
respect to Brazil, the uneducated women have some-
thing like 6.5 children each, whereas women with sec-
ondary education have only 2.5 children. Similarly, in
Liberia, it was found that women with secondary edu-
cation are 10 times more likely to use family planning
services. In another study among Kenyan women, it
was observed that education of farmer women could
increase agricultural production by 24 percent. Thus,
informal education is an important element in our
struggle towards enhancing the quality of life.
Let us take the resource consumption sce-
nario, again coming out of the population increase.
One can see that the ground water withdrawal in-
creased almost 36 times in the period 1800 - 1990,
whereas sediment load in the major and small river
basins went up by 3 and 8 times respectively around
the same period. Then we have degraded land, which
increased 3 times from 1700 - 1990. During the last
90 years, industrial production was increased by 100
times, whereas the forest cover got reduced by 15
Fig. US- 103
percent. Accordingly, there was considerable increase
in methane and CO2 emission. These statistics
depict only a glimpse of the adverse impact of re-
source consumption on the environment and ecolo-
gy. This is another major problem that faces human-
kind today in the context of the increasing popula-
tion.
On the dependence of mankind on the land
resources, no explanation is required [Fig. US- 103].
On the one hand, 19 percent of the world's population
is not getting enough food. On the other side, we have
30 to 50 percent of the GDP which is totally accounted
for in terms of agriculture in many of the developing
countries. What is more significant is the fact that con-
tinued use of land with poor agricultural practices, like
the use of fertilizers, and improper irrigation systems,
and so on, have resulted in considerable land degrada-
tion. It is significant to note that something like 1.2 bil-
lion acres of land over the last 45 years have become
degraded, which is roughly the area of India and China
put together. Further, water logging, salinization and
alkalinization reduce productivity of 1.5 mha annually
while 6-7 mha of agricultural land is turned unproduc-
tive each year because of erosion and 15 percent of
the total land resources is affected by human induced
degradation. Protection of the land resources, particu-
larly to meet the food requirements, assumes para-
mount importance.
Management of our water resources is yet
another formidable task in ensuring a better quality
of life. Global water withdrawals has increased 36-fold
in three centuries, and it is projected to further
increase by 30-35 percent by 2000 AD. It is surprising
to note that the irrigated agriculture accounts for 70
percent of the withdrawal and more than 60 percent of
irrigation water is wasted. There is an urgent need, and
considerable scope exists to conserve water by adopt-
ing a more scientific approach to water resource devel-
opment and management.
Let us look at a similar impact of the human
endeavor and proposed activities in the context of the
13
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. US-104
biosphere [Fig. CIS- 104]. We saw the increase in the
carbon dioxide — almost 33 percent over the last few
decades. The increased methane production from rice
fields and other sources by fossil fuel burning
increased by a factor of two. If one looks at the impli-
cations of this, the model shows the that global warm-
ing is expected to be around 0.3 degrees celsius per
decade over the next century or so, and then the glob-
al mean sea level may rise by 8 to 29 centimeters by
the year 2000 to 2020. Another possible implication of
increased greenhouse gases and the corresponding
increase in the global temperature is interestingly the
local increase in the temperature that could force veg-
etation and associated animals to shift their altitude of
habitation. In fact, there's an interesting study which
shows clearly the projections based on species area
relationships in the U.S.A. that the resulting decrease
of the habital space will result in the loss of 23 percent
of butterflies and 24 percent of mammals for moun-
tain ranges. So that is a kind of implication in the bio-
diversity that such shifting factors found would hap-
pen. And there results a need for a periodic monitoring
of this aspect of the changes in the biosphere.
Yet another challenge in our efforts towards
improving the quality of life is providing necessary
health care. It is an astonishing fact that three-fourths
of the diseases that affect people in the developing
countries are preventable. On the other hand, average
health expenditure of developing countries is just 4.2
percent of GDR If one looks at the population per doc-
tor, it is something like 6,670 in most of the develop-
ing countries, and contrast this with something like
380 per doctor in developed countries. Then we have
the problem of unhygienic environments leading to
serious health hazards affecting over 60 percent of the
urban population. It's interesting to note that in these
underdeveloped countries, only 54 percent of the pop-
ulation has access to the health care. A number of dis-
eases like malaria are spread by insect vectors that live
in typical ecologies. And lastly, almost half a billion
people, 1 out of 10, are now suffering from some kind
of tropical disease. This scenario calls for adequate
health care to cope with the large population and also
the problem of degrading environment, sanitation, and
so on.
It is in this context we look at where we stand
today against these challenges that face humankind.
The preamble to the Agenda 21 says, "Humanity
stands at a defining moment in history. We are con-
fronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and
within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill-
health and illiteracy and the continuing deterioration of
the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-
being. However, integration of environment and devel-
opment concerns and greater attention to them will
lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living
standards for all, better protected and managed
ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No
nation can achieve this on its own; but together we
can — in a global partnership for sustainable develop-
ment." So this is the message, and it is against this,
what do we see as a promise that space holds?
At the outset, under this promise, we look at
some of the educational aspects. We have operational
space systems today that offer at least four ways in
which education has been propagated: the distance
education, the developmental communication, interac-
tive training, and community education for better
resources management. There are a number of exam-
ples where space systems have been used effectively in
the context of these four classes of education such as
the use of tele-education in the G.S.A. Of course, my
country's own educational television programing is
another great example. In India, already more than 24
hours of educational television programs a week are
now done through the space system, and more
recently we also have had one dedicated communica-
tions transponder which is used for training and devel-
opmental communication. In fact, this has been used
for several aspects of training and developmental com-
munication such as adult education, education and
application of the skills of the shop floor people, the
education and the application of middle school teach-
ers, and so on. So in all this context, this kind of train-
ing and developmental communication system
transponder has been used. Another important exam-
ple of education using the space system is China.
Twenty-two hours of television programs are offered for
college students in the current system. There are
1,200 local television relay stations, 7,600 satellite
ground receiving stations, and 66,000 community
viewing centers. So there is a massive program in
China to deal with educational and literacy issues, and
the use of space system today is one of the potential
ways in which China is moving forward in meeting its
ever increasing demand with respect to education and
literacy. Something like 1.175 million students, or 37
percent of the total, have graduated from "television
14
USING SPACE TO ENHANCE LIFE ON EARTH
broadcasting college" in 10 years. So this is one
aspect of the promise that we have in the use of satel-
lite systems.
Now let us see the space technology option to
address the agriculture related issues [Fig. CJS-105].
We saw earlier the problems of land degradation, prob-
lems of poor agricultural yield and productivity, and
problems arising out of this in terms of the lack of
availability of food for almost 19 percent of the popula-
tion today. So here there are several issues which
could be tackled by space systems. Some of the issues
that are being addressed are the identification and
reclamation of cultural wasteland, diagnostic analy-
sis/monitoring for scientific management of irrigated
commands areas, crop monitoring, etc. We now have
systems which can monitor the crop with respect to its
yield, area, and so on. Space systems could be effec-
tively utilized to get advanced indications regarding the
crops that would affect the overall crop yield, and for
monitoring the degraded wastelands. Then there are
other areas related to the land classification according
to their capability/suitability to ensure that the land use
practice adopted is in tune with the terrain characteris-
tics.
However, integration of environment and devel-
opment concerns and greater attention to them
will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs,
improved living standards for all, better
protected and managed ecosystems and a safer,
more prosperous future.
I will dwell a little bit on what we have done in
India with respect to some of the problems related to
land use as well as agriculture. Thanks to the remote
sensing capabilities, we have today a system by which
we have a classification of the wasteland in the coun-
try. Roughly about 16 percent of the area of the coun-
try is what is classified as wasteland. This 16 percent
of the area is classified into 13 categories. And it is
found that at least 60 percent of this 16 percent is cul-
tural wasteland which could be reclaimed for produc-
tive agriculture. We find that with this classification
today, a massive program of reclamation of wasteland,
which is at least 60 percent of the total wasteland of
the country, is in progress. Then we have a crop yield
prediction system, which provides acreage and expect-
ed production, at least one month before the harvest
with an accuracy of 90 percent level, for the large
wheat growing areas as well as rice growing areas,
which constitute something like 80 percent of the
country's crop area. Diagnostic analysis of the 64
command areas is in progress, and this is a very
important aspect of remote sensing applications aimed
at scientific management of our command areas, par-
fig. US- 105
ticularly to reduce the gap in irrigation utilization, to
arrest degradation as well as to arrive at optimal crop-
ping pattern. So these are some of the important
aspects on which today an agricultural system using
space is becoming a reality. It is in fact used routinely
in the context of India for many of these aspects which
I just mentioned.
Space technology has been an effective tool to
address the issues related to water resources. We have
several aspects of the water resources problem, rang-
ing from extremely high withdrawal of ground water,
improper management of surface water, and so on,
and the question is how does one deal with this in the
case of optimal utilization along with exploration of
alternate sources for the water. Here are some of the
aspects on which the remote sensing systems have
been operationally used. One is the water resources
assessment. We have in India a major effort towards
mapping of surface water bodies. This is now being
routinely done — both in order to estimate the extent
of the area of water coverage and also to compute the
total storage capacity. The ground water targeting is
another major area in which quite a lot of work has
been done in India, particularly with respect to the cre-
ation of hydro geo-morphological maps, and these
kind of maps have been used to identify ground water
potential zones where we are likely to have a high
probability of tapping the water. I should say that from
conventional means our success rate was something
like 40 to 45 percent, whereas when the hydro geo-
morphological maps generated out of space imageries
were used along with conventional geophysical sur-
veys, our success has gone up, almost up to 95 per-
cent today, and this is based on something like
200,000 wells that have been dug all across the length
and breadth of India. The snowmelt runoff is another
thing in which quite a lot of countries have difficulties.
In the context of India, we have a full operational snow
melt run-off prediction system. They're able to predict
the total amount of water that will flow into reservoirs,
with certain accuracy, which is acceptable to the
15
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. US- 106
hydrologists and is done well ahead of the actual
event. Then water quality mapping, water conserva-
tion, and harvesting, which is another major thing by
which we have been also able to identify areas where
the harvesting is possible by constructing appropriate
structures so that water can be channelized for ground
water recharging. And then the better water use for irri-
gation efficiency through scientific management of irri-
gated command areas. These are some of the impor-
tant aspects of the work on which today the remote
sensing is being used on a routine basis, and most of
these have been of a very high satisfactory nature and
are being routinely used by several of the user agen-
cies in the country.
We have seen the extremely complex problems
associated with health care that are related particularly
to developing countries and many of the least devel-
oped countries [Fig. US- 106]. It is gratifying to note
that space capabilities have been efficiently used in
addressing some of these issues. But I must mention
in this context that 25 years back, through three
adorned telecommunications satellites, NASA set off
the first experiment in tele-medicine and that was a
pathbreaking effort which has been later taken by sev-
eral countries. And in today's context, at least in three
areas, space for health care becomes relevant. One is
the use of remote sensing and the GIS system to mon-
itor the ecologies that support insect vectors which
spread vector borne diseases such as malaria, lym-
phatic paralysis, and so on. The second is the develop-
mental communication, of which we mentioned earlier,
which could be effectively used to bring back health
consciousness in the poor and uneducated. And the
third is what tele-medicine offers — new vistas to over-
come the inaccessibility of expert treatment. So in all
the three areas today there have been successful
efforts, even though much needs to be done in this
context, and the U.S. has taken a lead in implementing
one of the very important projects that was carried out,
that of creation of the space bridge to Moscow during
the Armenian earthquake. Norwegian tele-medicine
Fig. US- 107
policies are examples of what has been possible with
space tele-medicine. The prospects for the future on a
wider scale are there — particularly in the context of the
availability of conventional systems to provide health
care at the required level — with the quality as well as
the quantity that one needs in the global context.
The next is a promise that comes with respect
to the environment [Fig. US- 107]. The environmental
impact assessment and preservation of environmental
integrity is one of the important things. In fact one
could use the space system today to assess the envi-
ronmental impact, particularly when you want to start
industries that may have an adverse impact on the sur-
rounding ecosystem, especially on the ground water.
Then is the management of the fragile ecosystem for
which identification of the biological species and quan-
tification of the changes become essential. In the case
of the forest resource management, today we have
quite a number of operational systems which have
been cleared all over the world. We have examples in
Brazil, and we have in India today a monitoring system
for the forest, by which every two years we update the
forest extent of the country. We have now extended this
capability of the forest mapping to timber volume esti-
mation, identification of forest species, forest density
mapping, and so on. So the periodic and the timely
assessment of the forest wealth today has become pos-
sible with the requisite precision and accuracy, thanks
to the space borne systems for monitoring this. And of
course we have the civil systems on the satellite today
which monitor atmospheric trace gases. And particular-
ly in context of the integrated geosphere, biosphere
program where the long term implications of these kind
of greenhouse gases is being looked at from the angle
of the changes in terms of the climatic systems and the
resulting impact on the biodiversity. But this is a very
important element of input that is today generated by
the space system. On the environmental front, there
are substantial things which are currently being carried
out in the context of using the space system for envi-
ronmental monitoring and quantification, as well as to
16
USING SPACE TO ENHANCE LIFE ON EARTH
Fig. US- 108
arrive at preemptive steps to arrest further environmen-
tal degradation.
The adverse impact of the increased anthro-
pogenic activities on the environment is compounded
by natural disasters [Fig. US- 108]. In 1991 alone, if
want to see the numbers in terms of the impact of
such kinds of natural disasters, the economic loss due
to disasters was something like $44 billion, and
according to the International Red Cross, the number
of people who have been killed because of various dis-
asters is really astonishing: in the case of drought it is
1.3 billion from 1967 to 1991; in the case of cyclone,
it is something like 0.8 million; in the case of earth-
quake it is 0.6 million; and in the case of floods it is
something like 0.3 million. But the maximum number
of events are flood events which have a tendency to
affect many countries. According to the Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies, 1400 flood events were
recorded between 1967 and 1990. So it is a known
fact regarding the need for warning, monitoring and
relief, in disaster prone areas. The relief agencies need
the communication capability of space systems to
reach quickly the disaster affected areas. In the case of
monitoring one uses the remote sensing satellite. For
example, satellite based early warning of drought is
something which has always had an impact in India.
We have a drought monitoring system around the
satellite using the vegetative index. And then you have
the relief related activities where the communications
related capabilities like the mobile search and rescue
satellites come into picture. In India, disaster warning
systems have been set up on the eastern and the west-
ern coasts of our country, both of which are susceptible
to large cyclonic systems. We have a cyclone warning
center in the east coast of India near Madras, which
tracks this kind of cyclone up to 400 kilometers. But
the INSAT system, which carries a very high resolution
radiometer, starts tracking the cyclone much ahead of
time, and since it has the capability to take the mea-
surements every half an hour, one can track the devel-
opment of the cyclone as well as its path to make a
Fig. US- 109
reasonable computation of the region along the coast
where it is most likely to affect people and property.
CIsing the communication capability of the same satel-
lite, we selectively address those areas of the popula-
tion where the cyclone is likely to hit so that preemptive
action with respect to the protection of life and property
could be taken. So this is a perfect example of the way
we have been using space system for disaster manage-
ment. During one of the cyclone events in May 1991,
on the east coast of Andhra Pradesh, something like
170 thousand people were evacuated in time to save
their lives as well as their property, using the IMSAT sys-
tem, both using the space imaging capability of the
VHRR, as well as the space communications capability
of the INSAT satellite.
While looking at the issues and the space
capabilities to address them, it is a matter of extreme
happiness that the global community has started look-
ing at many of these problems together. The serious-
ness which most of the governments have been follow-
ing these kinds of problems is very well evident from
the number of Earth summits we have been having
[Fig. CIS- 1 09], which include the International
Convention to formally combat decertification, the
Vienna Convention and its model Montreal Protocol
dealing with ozone. And then we have the Social
Summit itself, the Biodiversity Convention and the
Committee for Earth Observation Satellites. This glob-
al concern and unity provide us ample opportunity to
work together towards improving the quality of life.
Having discussed the issues and the capabili-
ties of space systems in addressing these issues
towards enhancing life on Earth, we need to look at
the emerging global scenario in space technology
development and its applications. Mo doubt, Earth
observation and monitoring as an integrated system,
space exploration, global connectivity, and space colo-
nization are going to be the frontier activities. Many
countries have adopted the satellite based systems for
Earth observation and monitoring, and it is going to be
only increasing, and one can see here the results in
17
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. US- 110
terms of resource information, which will be more
detailed, more frequen, and over a wider range to
enable sustainable natural resource management at
cadastral level. Today most of our mapping is done not
in the scale in which one can generate cadastral maps,
and if one looks into the planning aspect and one has
to go down to the lowest administrative entity, there is
a need to go to the cadastral level, which is today
becoming possible thanks to the resolution capabilities
of the space system. The space systems are going to
be more effectively used for frequent and accurate
monitoring of the environment, management of natur-
al disasters, and so on. So these systems will get
strengthened and expanded as the years go by with
several of the satellites or big systems monitoring
these kinds of problems. And then you have the global
connectivity. We didn't say much about it, but one is
very familiar with the connectivity in the context of indi-
viduals, community, national, and international sys-
tems, the increasing personal and mobile communica-
tion use, the use of communication for education and
tele-medicine and interactive tele-training, which will
end up in a vibrant small-office/home-office market,
and so on. Space systems will become active carriers
of information leading to things like information super-
highways and it is a matter of happiness that a lot of
research is going on in this country as to how to
strengthen these systems so that they become much
more effective and are able to meet more of the
demands that are being projected in the context of
several other activities. And one doesn't stop at this.
One is looking much further ahead in the context of
space exploration and space colonization where the
zero-g processing of materials would become relevant
in the context of several special materials, including
pharmaceuticals. The spirit of exploration will never
die, and one has here the space exploration which will
deal with all the aspects of the universe beyond us, our
planetary neighbors and the planetary systems. So
these are the frontiers which would take us further as
the years go by, keeping in mind the fundamental
questions which are clearly addressed by these two
18
areas towards the enhancement of the quality of life on
the Earth.
I did mention that many of the activities in our
country use remote sensing as well as communication
satellites. I should also mention that establishment of
space systems in our country had its precursors in our
cooperation with NASA. In fact, three major experi-
ments which we did in the 70s were the reasons why
we could confidently get onto these systems. One is
the use of the advanced technology satellite, the ATS-
6, which NASA located over the Indian Ocean for us to
conduct one of the most important sociological experi-
ments, the satellite instructional television experiment,
which brought for the first time in our country an
aspect for later developmental communications using
satellites. So that was a major experiment conducted
over a year, highly successful, well evaluated by the
sociologists, and it fully justified a total system, consid-
ering the length and breadth of the country. The area,
as you know, is 3.2 million square kilometers and has
a population which is today more like 900 million, so
to that extent there was justification for a system and
that gave us the INSATs, and the earlier satellites in the
INSAT series were bought from Ford Aerospace. The
second generation INSATs today are built by us, and
four of them are currently in operation. They provide
the wider telecommunication and television services
and from the general sector dealing with only the
development of communications. Today the INSAT
system also provides quite a lot of entertainment. In
fact, currently the INSAT system services the needs of
something like 85 percent of this 900 million popula-
tion, spread over around 65 percent of the area of the
country, and at present we are building the INSAT-2D
and more advanced versions like the INSAT-2E. These
are multi-purpose systems. Besides the television
broadcasting and telecommunication capabilities, they
also have the very high resolution radiometer which
can take pictures with respect to the cloud movements
in that part of the globe in half-hour intervals, so that
the information related to the cloud movements, tem-
peratures, precipitations, and many other meteorologi-
cal perimeters can be derived. An equally important
aspect is related to remote sensing. Here again the
pioneering cooperation that we had with NASA, first in
the use of a Hasselblad camera system to look at the
coconut wilt diseases in the southern state of Kerala.
Subsequently, India was one of the first few countries
to go to the use of Landsat for more sensing applica-
tions. Both gave insight into the importance of remote
sensing systems for India to deal with problems
of management of natural resources.
Today we have an operational system, and five
of the Indian Remote Sensing satellites are in orbit:
IRS-1A, IB, 1C, P2 and P3. These five form a constel-
lation of satellites which provide information both with
respect to the land related applications, the ocean
OSING SPACE TO ENHANCE LIFE ON EARTH
Fig. US- 1U
related applications, and to some extent, the environ-
ment related applications [Fig. CIS- 110]. And what is
significant is that this started as a cooperation with
NASA in the use of Landsat. Today we have come
back, and in cooperation with EOSAT we are trying to
see how best the information that is available from
these satellites can be made available to the global
remote sensing community. Here are some of our
future programs. These satellites primarily will address
more demanding requirements from the ocean as well
as a cartographic applications community, and finally
looking into the possibility of going for a high resolu-
tion space based system for applications related to
soil, agriculture, and many other areas. This is general-
ly the pattern. One of the interesting aspects of the
use of these satellites particularly relates to the use of
remote sensing for local specific development. Here
what we tried to do is to adopt an integrated
approach. Over the years, we have successfully opera-
tionalized a number of applications on a thematic
basis using the satellite data, like the applications for
forestry, geology, hydrology, and so on. In this particu-
lar case we integrate all this thematic information for a
particular area and then try to look at the soil condi-
tion, the moisture level, the ground water availability,
the surface water availability, the vegetation status, and
so on, and then try to view local specific prescriptions
which will deem more how to harvest water, how to
improve the water management, what kind of vegeta-
tion, or what kind of use of the land would enable the
land to be used on a sustainable basis. This kind of
information then is integrated along with other infor-
mation, like the meterological information, as well as
the socioeconomic parameters using a geographic
information system. The developmental plans are user
friendly, and are used directly by the lowest administra-
tive levels in the states, and the kind of transformation
that has been seen over the last two years in the appli-
cation of this concept to some of the areas in the
country is tremendous. The biggest problem was water
availability, the land misuse, and the scarcity of water
harvesting structures, including those for ground water
recharging. They were identified using the satellite
imageries and the carrying capacity of the land in this
region was also evaluated using satellite imagery. The
vegetative cover and the dynamics of that was also
evaluated using satellite imagery. The prescription was
given to the local people and has been implemented
by the district administration along with the local peo-
ple who own the land, so that there is no conflict
between a suggestion that is made and its implemen-
tation [Fig. CIS- 11 1J. And this concept we have now
extended to something like 174 districts in our country,
which is almost 45 percent of the area of the country,
and these are all problem area districts, whre there are
large amounts of degraded land, non-availability of
water for agricultural activities, and so on. Nearly 45
percent of the land area today is being covered under
Fig.US-112
this integrated mission for sustainable development
[Fig. CIS-112]. This is one of the very good examples
of the grassroot level of application of space for devel-
opment in the context of the country's needs.
Let me summarize here. As the years go by,
how does the system emerge? The technological push
adopted by some of our countries has really slowed
down their efforts towards improving the quality of life.
It is very clear that going for an application-driven
approach is extremely important and relevant in the
context of enhancing life on the Earth. The future is
also moving towards more inter-connectivity between
space systems, which means the use of communica-
tion and remote sensing together in looking at specific
problems. So the inter-connectivity and cooperation
between disciplines, as well as synergy, need to be
achieved. The cooperation among nations should
expand to identification of priority areas for concerted
global efforts. This is another major area that is cer-
tainly going to be there on the international agenda,
and already there are quite a good number of things
that are being done. For example, under the interna-
tional geosphere, biosphere program that looks at the
Earth as a total system with biological, chemical and
physical characteristics, considerable efforts are being
19
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
made to arrive at an integrated way of looking at the
system. But similar things will happen in the case of
the global connectivity and space exploration, and in
India we'll just not be left behind in the context of
global efforts and international cooperation. One
should also keep in mind that a large number of peo-
ple still do not have the benefits of space capability
and the benefits in the context of using the space
capability for their own special needs. Like some of the
needs that we saw in the context of India. There is cer-
tainly an urgent need to build an indigenous capability
in developing countries, particularly with respect to
their ability to use existing space systems for their own
developmental efforts. When this has to be done many
times, the problems are the ones which are related to
the political will — and equally important is the question
of availability of funds. The suggestion of setting up a
global fund to assist less developed counties assumes
significance. Looking towards a future vision, in the
past the visions have come from countries like the U.S.
The space vision. I cannot do anything better than
quote some of the fine space pioneers in this country
and also in the erstwhile Soviet Onion. Neil Armstrong
said, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap
for mankind." And the first astronaut of the Soviet
Union said, "And tomorrow, settlements on the moon,
voyages to Mars, scientific stations on asteroids, con-
tact with other civilizations. We shall not envy the peo-
ple of the future. They are lucky, and things about
which we can only dream will be ordinary for them."
So between them they're really pregnant with meaning
with respect to the vision for present as well as vision
for the future. Many of the countries have picked up
elements of this vision through their own visionaries to
make sure that the best capabilities of space are used
in the context of their own developmental needs. But
then we have said this, which is a broad vision, and
when it comes to a down to Earth kind of a thing, I
can only say with respect to what Carl Sagan, one of
the famous planetary scientists in this country, said,
"There are worlds on which life has never arisen. There
are worlds that have been charred by cosmic catastro-
phes. We are fortunate: We are alive. We are powerful.
The welfare of our civilization and our species is in our
hands. If we do not speak for Earth, who will? If we are
not committed to our own survival, who will be?" That
is a sense of enhancing the life on Earth. Thank you.
20
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
Space Applications and Cooperation
Master
Moderator:
Chair:
Panel
Participant:
Steven R Scott
Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space System Division
The Hon. Edward C. "Pete"
Aldridge Jr.
President and CEO
The Aerospace Corporation
Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan
Chairman
Indian Space Research Organization
Speakers: Dr. Arturo Silvestrini
President and CEO
EOSAT
Robert Minor
President
Rockwell Space Systems Division
Michael Gianelli
Vice President and General Manager
Government Operations, Hughes
Space & Communications
Akiyoshi Takada
Deputy Director General of the
Communications, Policy Bureau
Ministry of Posts and
Telecommunications, Japan
Mr. Scott: Now let me introduce the chair of our first
session. The Honorable Edward C. Aldridge, better
known as Pete, is the current president and CEO of
The Aerospace Corporation. He's also a director of the
United States Space Foundation and is widely recog-
nized as having been a leader in shaping our nation's
unmanned space program for the past two decades.
As such he is a natural candidate to lead our session
on current and future space applications. Ladies and
gentlemen, please welcome Pete Aldridge.
Mr. Aldridge: Good morning and welcome to the
panel on Space Applications and Cooperation. We
have four very distinguished and knowledgeable peo-
ple who can speak with authority on this topic. But
before introducing them I'd like to set the stage for
their presentations. We are in a new and ever changing
environment with regard to new directions in space
and the prospects for expanded international coopera-
tion. We're more dependent than ever upon each other
for success in space, from the sharing of launch vehi-
cles, launching satellites built and used by many
nations, to the use of components and technology
from all parts of the world for several of our missions,
especially the International Space Station.
And we're depending on resupply to the Space
Station for successful launch and deployment from all
of our Space Station partners. The expanding global
marketplace for space systems and the information
that these systems provide will give new opportunities
for economic expansion of the space industry directly
and of other industries indirectly by the application of
information supplied from space. We're on a superson-
ic trip into the information age which will result in
worldwide requirements for interoperable and intercon-
nected networks, communications platforms, and
standards of communication among the various sys-
tems and the various nations that supply them.
Cooperation among the industries will be
inevitable as we search for the best products at the
cheapest prices from this growing worldwide market-
place of rapidly advancing technology.
One of the more interesting aspects of interna-
tional cooperation in space is evolving from the nation-
al security imperatives. As worldwide interests merge
and coalition forces become more commonplace in
areas of mutual interest, we are seeing a growing
acceptance of the use of national space assets of sev-
eral nations being combined in support of international
peacekeeping operations. The recent report on the
intelligence community by former Secretary of Defense
Harold Brown confirmed the validity of an integrated
and international space intelligence system for support
of global awareness and peacekeeping operations. I
hope tomorrow's session on national security will have
some discussion about this topic.
Last year the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics (AIAA) held a workshop on interna-
tional space cooperation, in which some 15 nations
participated, and stated as one of its findings that, and
I quote: "The global political, industrial, and social
economic climate makes wide-ranging cooperation
not only possible, but what is new is that international
cooperation may now may be a necessary strategy to
achieve the goals set out for space-related projects."
With this background, I would now like to
introduce our speakers. The first speaker will be Dr.
Arturo Silvestrini, president and CEO of EOSAT, who
21
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
will speak on Earth sensing. Dr. Silvestrini has more
than 40 years of professional experience, most of
which is in aerospace-related industries. He was bom
in Italy and received his doctorate degree in electrical
engineering from the University of Rome.
The second speaker is Robert Minor, president
of Rockwell's Space Systems Division, who will speak
on the subject of navigation satellites. Mr. Minor
received his bachelor of science degree in electrical
engineering from Southern Methodist University and
continues to study at UCLA's graduate school of engi-
neering. He joined Rockwell in 1963, initially working
on the Apollo program. Then he joined the Space
Shuttle program at its inception. He became vice pres-
ident and general manager of Rockwell's Houston
operation, providing on-site support to NASA for shut-
tle operations. In 1988 he was appointed to his current
position, where, in addition to shuttle support, he is
responsible for advanced technology programs.
We concluded it was time to encourage
governments to exchange more information
and resources in Earth sensing.
— Dr. Silvestrini
Third is Mike Gianelli, vice president and gener-
al manager of Hughes Space & Communications
Company. Mike is replacing Don Cromer, who was
originally on the program, who very happily launched
one of the Hughes satellites on the Soviet Proton rock-
et just yesterday — successfully, I understand. Mike will
speak on communications satellites.
Mr. Gianelli earned his bachelor's degree in
aerospace engineering from Notre Dame, his master's
degree in mechanical engineering from University of
South Carolina, and a master's degree from Pepper-
dine University. He has been with Hughes for 23 years
and currently has responsibility for government opera-
tions, including business development and programs.
And fourth is Akiyoshi Takada, deputy director
of the communications policy bureau, Ministry of Post
and Telecommunications in Japan. Mr. Takada will also
speak on the subject of communications satellites. Mr.
Takada obtained his education from Tokyo University
Law School and immediately entered the Ministry of
Post and Telecommunications in 1968. He moved
through the organization until reaching his current
position in 1993.
Editor's note: The introduction of Dr. Silvestrini was
made by Mr. Aldridge in his opening remarks
Dr. Silvestrini: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I will speak on Earth observation but I would like to
give you the feeling of why we have this panel — and
actually why we have the panel that will follow us.
Three years ago, under the leadership of Pete Aldridge,
we had a conference symposium, in beautiful Hawaii,
to talk about international cooperation in space. This
was the first one, in which we talked about which
space applications we considered most likely to be
enhanced by space cooperation.
I was on the space applications panel led by
Roy Gibson, who is going to be the chairman of the
following panel, and co-led by John McLucas. We con-
cluded that three applications must be considered:
communications, which was already well developed,
Earth sensing, and navigation. Earth sensing covers
disaster monitoring as well. We concluded that there
was not enough attention from the governments of the
space-exploring nations to applications of Earth sens-
ing which were not just scientific. We concluded it was
time to encourage governments to exchange more
information and resources in Earth sensing. We con-
cluded that without the participation of industry in
Earth sensing, there would be no way for Earth sens-
ing to be a real application to benefit mankind. We
invited ourselves (everybody was represented in our
group: academia, government, United States, and of
course, industry) to organize meetings to implement
the recommendations. 1 tasked myself — and Roy
Gibson did the same thing — to work to expand the
vision for industry, and for industry to participate with
industry in other countries and with other govern-
ments. Three years later we have seen some results of
that. Some are due to our activities and some, of
course, were naturally occurring. Where are we now?
CEOS, the Committee for Earth Observation
Satellites, which is basically formed by representatives
of governments, has opened its door, at least to some
extent, to private industry. Not completely, but they
have shown the sign that they will do it. We have had
many initiatives, especially in the United States, in
Earth sensing, new systems for most (I am talking
about Space Imaging, Orbimage, Earth Watch, and
the like), where you have seen that partnership extend-
ed outside the United States significantly, in Europe, in
Asia, in the Middle East. You have seen multi-national
cooperation between government and industry of sev-
eral nations. We, EOSAT — with the U.S. government —
started 12 years ago in this cooperation. EOSAT was
only American, was between Hughes and RCA at the
time, but now with Lockheed Martin and the U.S. gov-
ernment for Landsat. We have seen SPOT also with
the government in France. We have seen Radarsat.
Now we are seeing the best of them all, the Indian
Program. EOSAT started with Landsat and EOSAT is
again at the forefront. We are cooperating with the
Indian Space Agency in distributing the most
22
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
Arrival Of Space Navigation
Space Navigation Architectures
Augmented GPS
Augmented GPS
Accuracy
Availability
*> Rockwell
Fig. SA-101
advanced Earth sensing data to the users.
In terms of participation of private industry in
the activities of the space-training nations represented
by CEOS, I would like to mention that EOSAT has
started the formation of associations of private users of
Earth sensing in Europe and North America, and is
doing the same in Asia, South America, and Australia.
Roy Gibson will give you a lot more details on the
activity we have done. And this is a common activity
between us, Roy Gibson, and SPOT. Yes, SPOT our
so-called enemy, that is not an enemy.
Let me conclude with a couple of observations
on the India Space Program — on things that Dr.
Kasturirangan has not said because he's probably
modest. First of all, I have heard several times in the
past comments asking how can a country like India
afford a space program. I have been there many times
and let me tell you, I have never seen a country that
has the space program so integrated with their life —
not politics, but life. And I think that is the reason the
Indian space program there, at least the part I have
seen better — Earth observation — is so strong and so
mature. It is not like ours. Every year we don't know if
Landsat will go up or down, or if we will lose the
money or somebody invents something else. The
Indians have a long-term program because the life of
their nation depends on space. What they do every
year is to adjust maybe 10% of their budget for that
year, but they don't cancel things. Governments may
go, but not the space program. That's serious.
That satellite they launched just a few months
ago is giving us the best results that we've ever seen in
commercial satellites. There is an exhibit outside, you
can look at it. It is the most advanced non-military
satellite and is going to be available for everybody. This
is the conclusion of my speech, don't worry about its
length. When I saw their centers I saw thousands of
young people, well dressed, extremely well spoken,
well educated, and enthusiastic about the space pro-
gram, working eight, 10, 12 hours a day. Do you know
what I thought? Because I worked with NASA, even
Positioning Service Accuracy Augmentation
H Precise
16 meters H
100 meters ■
H Wide Area
H Local Area _
H Standard
_ .6-3 meters
V Rockwell
Fig. SA-102
before NASA at the beginning, I saw NASA again.
They like the old, real NASA. I wish we had here the
enthusiasm that these guys have. Thank you.
Editor's note: Introduction of Mr. Minor appeared in
Mr. Aldridge's opening remarks.
Mr. Minor: Good morning. I would like to talk to you
this morning about the way we see the direction of
space navigation, well into the next decade. This vision
is a compilation from interviews and discussions with
system users, system architects, and system operators,
as well as considerations from the many studies of
GPS and congressional hearings.
Our company has a long standing commit-
ment to space navigation and GPS, dating back to the
early 1970s. Two weeks ago we successfully launched,
and are in the process of deploying, our 25th Block II
operational satellite. All 25 satellites are still operating,
some dating back almost seven years. The entire GPS
team, including the (IS. Air Force, Aerospace, U.S.
Naval Observatory, IBM, and Rockwell was honored
with the presentation of the Collier Trophy in 1992.
Focus your attention on two main areas today:
the future applications and our challenge to maximize
the system utility. Looking at navigation history [Fig.
SA-101], even the past few years have seen orders of
magnitude improvement in accuracy and availability,
compared to terrestrial-based systems, such as Loran.
We will look at some of the ways space navigation is
revolutionizing life on Earth. The Presidential Decision
Directive of March 29 reaffirmed continued (IS. sup-
port for free access to the signals, calls for an annual
determination on continued use of selective availability,
and established a permanent Interagency GPS
Executive Board.
Let's just briefly define some terms for our talk
[Fig. SA-102]. There are many architectures for space
navigation, and all vary depending on the application.
Basically they fall into two architectures: the basic GPS
23
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Battlefield of the Future
Military Missions
Featureless Environment
Ultra Precision Strike
4* Rockwell
Fig. SA-103
NAVWARS
Future Military Missions
of GPS navigation signal
against jamming
* Threat induced
» Self induced
" Noise and other
non-intentional sources
Prevention . . .
- of use of GPS navigation
signal
- generation and use of
augmentation signals
Ground based
* Space based
Studies Will Develop An Integrated Architecture
That Addresses Above Issues
4^ Rocfrwetf
Fig. SA-104
GPS IIF Procurement
Current plan
- JPO Streamlined Procurement - Contract is for Space and
Control Segments
- Award Date - Late April
What IIF brings to user community
33 satellite buy supports the space segment to 2015 and beyond
- System has capability for future growth - Flexibility
Second civilian frequency brings greater accuracy
- New military capability
Signal strength raised to current satellite (II / HA) performance
9 Rockwell
Fig. SA-105
and augmented GPS.
As originally designed, the system was and still
is a stand-alone system. However, because of the ter-
rific appetite for accuracy and profits, new ingenious
architectures have driven the system way beyond any-
one's imagination of just a few years ago.
Some of these augmentations represent con-
cerns to the U.S. military and our allies because of the
global availability of precise accuracy. For example, the
wide area broadcast for the Eastern CI.S. air space also
Fig. SA-106
provides 7-meter accuracy to all the Near East coun-
tries, including Iraq. This presents a dilemma that I will
touch on later.
I'm going to talk about three categories of GPS
applications: military, civil, and commercial. Because
of the limitation of time, I will not be able to talk about
all the important applications but will focus on those
that seem to have the greatest promise into the next
century.
Let's first take a look at some military missions.
Theater conflicts of the future [Fig. SA-103] will be
fought in unfamiliar featureless terrain, much like con-
flicts and wars of the past. GPS provides a new force
multiplier, as was proven in the Gulf War. Precision
guided munitions will enable more effective strikes and
less civilian collateral damage.
All of this will need to be accomplished in an
environment of what is now being called NAVWARS.
NAVWARS [Fig. SA-104] is a solicitation out of the
GPS joint program office. This will begin as an archi-
tectural study to define ways to protect the U.S.
Department of Defense and allied interests, as well as
preventing use of GPS by our adversaries, while still
providing access to allied and civil users.
At this point let me mention something about
the next block of GPS satellites [Fig. SA 105]. The
GPS joint program office is currently in source selec-
tion for the next 33 satellites and ground segment. An
award later this month will demonstrate to our allies
and the rest of the world our commitment and leader-
ship to this system.
The new functional capabilities contain the fol-
lowing. The system will have built-in added capacity, or
flexibility, for new capabilities for added missions in the
future. It will also contain a second civilian frequency
that will improve civilian accuracy. And, finally, it will
increase signal strength.
This is a great picture up there [Fig. SA-106].
This was a very happy day for the military — a GPS-
aided rescue. Rockwell was recently awarded a con-
24
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
Future Commercial Applications
Precision Farming
Combining GPS and Remote Sensing
Fig. SA-107
Land Transportation
Communications, provides Navigation Units
a C'i, asset location sim "
1995 2005
& Rockwell
Fig. SA-108
tract for production of the Combat Survivor Evader
Locator (CSEL) to enable more effective rescues, such
as that of Capt. O'Grady in Bosnia.
CSEL had been under study for several years —
Capt. O'Grady brought this idea home. The first pro-
duction calls were for 11 ,000 of these units to be built.
And I am sure there will be more that will follow.
Let's now look at how space navigation is
affecting our lives in the commercial arena [Fig. SA-
107]. Two areas of land transportation [Fig. SA-108J
are currently benefiting from GPS: trucking and auto.
However, for units to become part of our everyday
lives, the cost must come down — and because of sup-
ply and demand the cost probably will. In less than 10
years, the cost of GPS auto receivers will enable this
system to be optional equipment on every auto at an
affordable price. With GPS, navigating complex central
cities of the world will be much easier.
Combining GPS with remote sensing enables
something called precision farming [Fig. SA-109],
which places the right amount of nutrients in the right
place. This will improve crop yields, reduce ground
water pollution, and reduce costs of farming. While the
concept of precision farming is in the proof-of-concept
and demonstration phases, it appears that this is a
500 1000 1100 2000 MOO
*> Rockwell
Fig. SA-109
Fig.SA-110
breakthrough technology for the farming community.
A residual benefit of GPS is the global accep-
tance of it for time transfer [Fig. SA-1 10]. The time
accuracy of GPS enables the isolation of line breaks to
the nearest utility pole. Telecommunications is relying
on GPS for timing on a global basis as digital commu-
nications become prevalent. This enables an increase
in system capacity.
Civil Applications [Fig. SA-1 11] represents an
area where rich rewards of GPS are taking place, in
lives saved and dollars saved. A couple of years ago in
southern California there were some devastating fires.
As we tried to apply GPS to other applications we went
and talked to the firefighters and asked them, "How do
you keep up with your resources? Your trucks, your air-
planes, your people?" They pulled out a 3X5 card and
said, "This is the way we do it." And we said we have a
better idea for you. We are in the midst of working with
these people today for an application of GPS and other
products to make sure the firefighters are as techno-
logically advanced as we see in some of the other
applications that are coming up.
Applications to aviation have been under study
for 15 years [Fig. SA-1 12]. The FAA's Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS) and Local Area Aug-
mentation System (LAAS) have architectures that will
25
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig.SA-111
Wide Area Enroutc Through Cat !
Aviation
Local Area Cat II SHI
GPS Deployment For Aviation
Saves S5B Annually
*> Rockwell
Fig.SA-112
Railroads
I Positive Train Control (PTC)
*> Rockwell
Fig.SA-113
Fig.SA-114
meet future system capacity needs, improve safety,
and return cost savings in fuel and time. However,
there remain large development, deployment, and
political challenges in this arena. This is an area where
cooperation between government, airlines, and GPS
providers will enable sole means service by the year
2010 or before.
The railroad system [Fig. SA-1 13] is in the
proof-of-concept phase. It faces the same challenges
as aviation applications, that is, government regulation
for safety reasons and military signal protection.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, sev-
eral recent railway accidents could have been prevent-
ed with Positive Train Control using GPS. I think we will
see that in the future.
I've presented some of the applications that we
believe will grow significantly in the next decade.
However, to do so they need to contend with the GPS
dilemma: expanding system utility while protecting the
military mission. The resolution of this dilemma is
through continued U.S. system leadership, providing
free access in order to discourage other countries from
developing their own system, developing methods to
protect the U.S. military signal, and preventing use of
the signal by the threat.
Let me briefly summarize [Fig. SA-1 14] by presenting
a timeline of some of the major applications that we
have talked about. First, surveying was the first wide-
spread use of GPS and has already made the transi-
tion from its old technology to GPS. Transportation
applications have been under study for years. The
major transformation will occur with the introduction
of WAAS in the late 1990s and LAAS in the early years
of the next century. Full sole means use is planned for
2010. Rail services are still in the proof-of-concept
phase but will likely catch up by 2010, forced by safety
considerations. Highway usage will be driven by the
reduction in user equipment cost with widespread use
by 2005. Commercial applications and time transfer
services are virtually in place at this time. GPS is truly a
great system, and Rockwell is proud to be a part of it.
Editor's note: Introduction of Mr. Gianelli appeared in
Mr. Aldridge's opening remarks.
Mr. Gianelli: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It
is a real pleasure to be with you this morning to
engage in a dialogue about a subject that we all hold
near and dear . . . SPACE.
26
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
Fig. SA-201
In this morning's session on Space
Applications and Cooperation, I've been
asked to discuss communications. Let me
begin by stating, without equivocation, that
communications and navigation are the
only viable commercial uses of space in
existence today. Of the two, communica-
tions is the space application that continues
to shrink our world and drive international
cooperation as few commercial undertak-
ings can.
You might say that the globe began
shrinking in the 15th century with the
advent of movable type and the printing
press. Ocean liners, and later air travel,
accelerated the narrowing of the geographic
gaps that separate the nations of the globe.
The telegraph, telephone and eventually
transoceanic cable drew the world into an
even tighter circle.
It wasn't until 1963, however, with
Hughes' invention of the geosynchronous
communications satellite that a truly new
millennium in telecommunications capability
emerged. Syncom, from its position 22,300 miles
above the equator and moving at the same speed as
the Earth rotates, forever changed our lives. Today,
the phrase "live via satellite," is seldom used even as
we witness the world's events in real time, because
satellite communication is so commonplace that is
almost taken for granted. So we don't say "live via
satellite," any more than we would say "calls via
telephone."
It is this concept of a shrinking world that has
created the global village that encourages, in fact
demands, that the peoples of the world cooperate for
their mutual benefit. I'm pleased to say that communi-
cations satellites have fueled the concept of the global
village as few other inventions have, and they have
thus played a major role in creating a world without
boundaries.
Before addressing the issue of cooperation, I'd
like to spend a few minutes discussing the various
applications which communications satellites serve.
When you say communications satellites, the first
thing that comes to mind is television program distrib-
ution. News, sports and weather. . .all staples on the
information and entertainment menus of people
around the world.
While it's easy enough to comprehend that
television programming is one of the primary uses of
satellites, we don't often think of satellites as being the
source of a number of newspapers and magazines.
Nor do we often think that when we put down a credit
card to make a purchase at a department store our
transaction is likely being approved via satellite.
Likewise, thousands of stock and bond trans-
actions each day, as well as numerous hotel and airline
reservations, are transmitted via satellite. And a num-
ber of large corporations around the globe use satel-
lites to control inventory, conduct training and conduct
research.
Here in the United States, the Commonwealth
of Virginia and several other states use sattlelites for
distance learning, and a number of satellite-delivered
learning programs are offered for elementary school
students to enhance educational opportunities for our
nation's children. One such program, the Galaxy
Classroom, is sponsored by Hughes. Satellite-based
telemedicine programs are enabling expert medical
diagnosis and treatment assistance for those living in
remote areas that are medically under-served.
The blueprint for the future is being created
today and without question, the three fastest growth
areas for satellite communications are direct-to-home
television, mobile communications, and broad-band
services. Few, if any, Americans haven't heard of
DIRECTV or the DSS System [Fig. SA-201]. With the
small 18-inch dish and DSS set-top receiver, more
than 1.3 million American families are receiving up to
200 channels of television programming in their living
rooms direct from spacecraft flying 22,300 miles over
the equator. Viewers can select pay-per-view hit movies
that start as often as every half-hour and sports pro-
gramming along with news, financial and market infor-
mation, history, travel, crafts instruction, etc., when
they want it.
In Europe, the Society of European Satellites is
providing direct-to-home delivery of television and
radio programming through its Astra fleet of satellites.
27
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
And direct-to -home services are emerging in Latin
America, Japan, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
The first satellite dedicated solely to mobile
communications in North America was launched last
year. Later this month, another Mobile Satellite will join
it, providing seamless mobile communications capabil-
ity for travelers in automobiles, trucks, boats, and air-
craft throughout the United States, Canada, and
Mexico.
Last year ICO Global Communications, an
Inmarsat affiliate company, ordered 12 high-powered
satellites that will provide hand-held mobile communi-
cations services around the globe. That system will
become operational in 1998, a little more than two
years from now.
And remote sensing imagery will tell farmers the
best times to plant crops to increase crop yields.
By understanding long range weather patterns,
these farmers could avoid planting seeds that
would be washed away by heavy rains before
they have a chance to take root.
Hughes and several other companies have
applications pending before the FCC to build and
operate fleets of high-powered Ka-Band satellites that
will provide high-speed data transmission and a full
range of interactive services, including personal tele-
conferencing and medical imaging, to a global com-
munity. When these satellites are launched, the Global
Information Infrastructure will be in place. Here, once
again, we see on-board digital processing technology
developed for the military being used as the backbone
for a highly complex commercial application.
Collectively, these new applications hold
tremendous promise for the world's developing
nations. The technology that enables mobile commu-
nications and private networks can be used also to
provide instant communications infrastructure to
developing nations.
For example, using satellites and a small Earth
station, a village in central Africa can establish eco-
nomically viable telecommunications links with the
outside world in a matter of days, instead of the years
and millions of dollars it would take to lay cable to
establish similar capability. A regional government can
use small inexpensive dishes linked to digital satellite
systems to establish multi-site educational facilities.
(Jsing such systems, governments can provide
enhanced educational opportunities to their children
by offering a wide range of subjects taught by a small
core of master educators.
Medical imaging technology that will be avail-
able through Ka-Band satellite systems I mentioned
earlier will serve as the backbone for telemedicine ser-
vices for remote regions. Through the use of such sys-
tems, doctors, nurses, and other paramedicals can
obtain expert advice from specialists around the globe.
With microcameras and small affordable uplink dishes,
surgeons could remotely guide procedures that save
lives.
And remote sensing imagery will tell farmers
the best times to plant crops to increase crop yields.
By understanding long range weather patterns, these
farmers could avoid planting seeds that would be
washed away by heavy rains before they have a chance
to take root.
Thus far, I've talked about some truly exciting
and promising new applications. Global cooperation,
however, is required in order to maximize these ser-
vices, and cooperation is the second part of my dis-
cussion with you today.
Cooperation is not new in civil and commercial
space activities. Certainly foreign scientists and engi-
neers have been frequent passengers on the CI. S.
Space Shuttle fleet, often conducting experiments that
could lead to full-blown commercial uses of space.
And American astronauts have also flown in the MIR
Space Station.
Likewise, other nations have cooperated to
provide emergency landing options for shuttle crews.
And a number of nations have participated in joint
operations with NASA.
In the commercial communications satellite
industry, international cooperation was present from
day one. The world's first commercial communications
satellite, Early Bird, did, in fact, belong to the world
community. Operated by Intelsat, the international
telecommunications satellite consortium, the Early
Bird satellite, which was launched in 1965, ushered in
the new millennium I referred to earlier. Today, Intelsat
is made of more than 120 of the world's nations, in
cooperation to serve the communications needs of the
world's peoples.
The Intelsat consortium was created to provide
satellite communication services to the nations of the
world. It was quickly realized, however, that ours was
also a global maritime community and that satellites
could also provide communications services to ships
at sea.
In 1976, three Hughes-built Marisat spacecraft
were launched creating the world's first non-military
mobile satellite communications system. Today,
Inmarsat's global commercial mobile satellite commu-
nications fleet provides telephone, telex, facsimile, and
data transmission services, including distress and safe-
ty communications services to ships at sea and to
mobile users both on land and in aircraft aloft.
28
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
Headquartered in London, Inmarsat is a consortium of
more than 60 member countries.
In the cases of both Intelsat and Inmarsat, the
satellites purchased by the consortia have been built
using components from around the globe.
Cooperation, however, is not solely the province of the
international communications consortia nor should it
be the tool that enables technologically advanced
nations to exploit the developing world. Cooperation
must provide global benefit.
For example, as part of the contract to build
Indonesia's first domestic satellite system, Hughes
agreed to train Indonesian engineers and technicians
in satellite design and assembly. That cooperation has
carried over through each of the two successive gener-
ations of Palapa satellites. Today Hughes is involved in
an effort to upgrade the science curricula of
Indonesian universities to enhance the country's tech-
nology development plan.
In fact, engineers from Canada, Brazil, Mexico,
Thailand, China, Japan, Malaysia, Australia, Hong
Kong, and Indonesia have all worked alongside
Hughes personnel in our facility in El Segundo to pro-
duce the satellites we have built for their countries.
The explosion in satellite communications
applications I spoke of earlier is driving cooperation in
ways previously unthought of. As the world moves
rapidly toward the privatization of telecommunications
infrastructure, new opportunities provide — often
demand — a new kind of cooperation between suppliers
and service providers.
While it may be immediately clear that few ser-
vice providers have either the engineering expertise or
the facilities to build their own hardware, we often
overlook the fact that this rapid expansion requires
greater access to space than at any other time since
satellite communications began. Not only do we need
more launch vehicles, we need different kinds. More
efficient, more affordable access to space is the linch-
pin in every model for the expansion of satellite com-
munications services currently on the drawing board.
Fortunately, in the last few years we have seen
ventures emerge that promise to meet this increasing
demand. But these new ventures, while challenging
from an engineering perspective, are also extremely
expensive, and that is where cooperation is helping to
accelerate this trend.
McDonnell Douglas has decided to build a new
version of its venerable Delta rocket called the Delta III.
To make that decision economically viable, McDonnell
Douglas needed a guaranteed initial market for its new
product. Last year Hughes entered into an agreement
to buy 10 Delta III launches and to take options on
more. That decision allowed McDonnell Douglas to
proceed with this project and now the first launch of a
Delta III is planned for 1998.
Likewise, when Boeing decided to develop a
totally new launch concept called Sea Launch, it could
do so only with the cooperation and participation of an
extensive team of international partners. But again,
predictions for success required a guaranteed initial
market. In December, Hughes struck a deal with Sea
Launch to purchase its first 10 launches and took
additional options.
These deals don't represent corporate benefi-
cence. They are the foundation upon which we are
securing our future as a satellite manufacturer and ser-
vice provider. We will use some of these launches to
expand our current service business, while others will
provide prospective customers an economical, efficient
route to orbit.
As the world moves rapidly toward the privatiza-
tion of telecommunications infrastructure, new
opportunities provide — often demand — a new
kind of cooperation between suppliers and
service providers.
Just as new launch vehicle development
requires cooperation, the increasingly private service
provision industry also often depends on cooperative
alliances for success. Earlier I mentioned AMSC and
ICO Global Communications as providers of new
mobile communications services. Both of these orga-
nizations had capital-intensive establishment and
expansion plans. In order to pass the first hurdle on
the path to long-term financing, both needed a series
of initial investors. The same was true of Motorola's
Iridium project. In each case satellite manufacturers
provided some initial funding guarantees to jump-start
those projects.
Just as it was in the early days of satellite com-
munication, international cooperation remains the cru-
cial ingredient in the recipe for the future success of
the commercial communications satellite industry.
For the world to enjoy the rewards of the tech-
nologies I have described will require international
cooperation not just among the manufacturers and
service providers, but cooperation among and within
governments as well.
As international systems such as the global
mobile personal communications system come on
line, the satellite communications industry finds itself
where the airlines were years ago — in the position of
having to negotiate landing rights. For these systems
to be most effective, they must be available to the
world's citizens without border considerations.
Which brings us to the point of standards.
29
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Global systems can only work if the user community
adopts product and system standards which apply
internationally. Mobile telephones that work in New
York should also work in Tokyo. Data transmitted from
Senegal should be easily received and used in Istanbul.
The challenge facing our industry is the design and
delivery of seamless end-to-end systems.
To help bring focus and attention to these
cooperative issues which we face as we move toward
global mobile personal communications systems, the
International Telecommunications Onion will hold its
first World Telecommunications Policy Forum this
October in Geneva.
The primary focus of the forum, a three-day
gathering of private and public sector leaders, is to
reach agreement on policy and regulatory measures,
at the national, regional, and international levels,
required to facilitate deployment of the systems and to
promote access to the services they offer at the most
reasonable rates possible.
Communications applications and cooperation
is truly a closed loop system. The applications drive
cooperation and cooperation can in turn drive the cre-
ation of even more effective beneficial applications.
While we may be a world of many nations, we are, in
fact, a global village created under the umbrella of
communications. Thank you.
Editor's note: Introduction of Mr. Takada appeared in
Mr. Aldridge's opening remarks. The text following
was provided in the paper/presentation entitled,
"Development of Satellite Communications and
Promotion for International Cooperation in Japan" by
Akiyoshi Takada.
Mr. Takada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
your gracious introduction. I'd like to start by thanking
my U.S. Space Foundation hosts for inviting me to this
beautiful city, Colorado Springs. 1 am very pleased to
be given the chance to speak on Japanese satellite
communications.
In today's presentation, first I'd like to explain
about the development of Japanese satellite communi-
cations. Next, I'll speak about the international joint
satellite experiments related to Gil (Global Information
Infrastructure) and about the importance of the role of
satellites for human resource development and the
improvement of infrastructure in developing countries.
Last, I'd like to talk about trends in the promotion of
advanced R&D in Japan.
The history of satellite communications in
Japan started with the launch of CS (Medium-capacity
communications Satellite for Experimental Purposes)
in December 1977, which was 15 years behind the
United States. This satellite was developed by NASDA
(The National Space Development Agency of Japan).
However, most of its parts were based on technology
introduced from the (IS. Moreover, the satellite was
launched by a Delta 2914 rocket. As the following
chart shows, Japan has acquired the technology of
satellite development and has developed satellite com-
munications while learning from the U.S., especially
from NASA.
Communication
Satellite
Launched
Date
Launch
Vehicle
Price (hundred
million yen)
Contractor
CS — 3a
1988.2.19
JAPAN
252
JAPAN
CS — 3b
1988.2.16
JAPAN
JAPAN
JCSAT— 1
1989. 3. 7
ES A
unknown
USA
JCSAT— 2
1990. 1. 1
USA
unknown
U SA
SUPER BIRD-A
1992.12.2
ESA
unknown
USA
SUPER BIRD-B
1992. 2.27
ESA
unknown
U SA
N— STARa
1995. 8.29
ESA
unknown
U SA
N— STARb
1996. 2. 5
ESA
unknown
USA
JCSAT— 3
1995. 8.29
USA
unknown
USA
Concerning the use of satellite communica-
tions in Japan, until the first half of 1980, NTTPC
(Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corp.) and
government bodies such as the National Police Agency
were the main users of satellite services. In 1985, when
the principle of competition was introduced in the field
of telecommunications services, two satellite commu-
nications carriers newly appeared.
Currently, JCSAT of Japan satellite systems
and SCIPERBIRD of SCC and NStar of NTT are under
operation. N-Stars has started to provide a domestic
mobile satellite communications service. A digital
multi-channel broadcasting service is just around the
corner. We are now entering a second development
era for satellite communications as illustrated in the
following chart.
Broadcasting
Satellite
Launched
Date
Launch
Vehicle
Price (hundred
million yen)
Contractor
BS — 3a
1990.8.28
JAPAN
374
JAPAN
BS — 3b
1991.8.25
JAPAN
JAPAN
BS — 3N
1994. 7. 9
ESA
unknown
USA
BSAT— 1 a
1997. plan
ESA
unknown
USA
BSAT— 1 b
1998. plan
ESA
unknown
USA
On the other hand, concerning the world, as a
result of the initiative taken by the Gnited States vice
president, Mr. Al Gore, in advocating Gil, many coun-
tries are now in the process of establishing their own
national information infrastructures.
The significance and importance of the Gil is,
I believe, that anyone can take advantage of an ad-
30
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
■I
Fig. SA-301
vanced info-communications services any-
where, helping to increase communications
between people and people, and between
country and country. The goal is that mutual
understanding will grow all over the world and
contribute to world peace. In addition, the
advanced information infrastructure will bring
about a new multimedia industry and con-
tribute to more employment opportunities
[Fig. SA-301].
In this context, much is expected of
satellite communications because of the testi-
fied advantages, especially regarding wide cov-
erage, flexibility of establishing communication
links, mobility, and so on. Satellite communi-
cations are sure to play an essential role in the Gil.
During the G-7 Information Society
Conference in Brussels in February 1995, 11 interna-
tional joint projects were adopted towards a speedy
establishment of the Gil.
In Japan, we promote each project in cooper-
ation with other G-7 countries, and above all in satel-
lite communications, we are promoting the Japan-CJS
Transpacific High Data Rate Satellite
Communications Experiments Project under the
framework of GIBN, Global Inter-operability for
Broadband Networks, which is one of the 1 1 joint pro-
jects.
A configuration of these experiments is shown
(Fig. SA-302]; Japan and Hawaii are connected by
INTELSAT, Hawaii and the (IS. mainland are connect-
ed by ACTS (Advanced Communications Technology
Satellite.) The first experiments on this project are
ATM-LAN interconnection at 45 Mbps and High
Definition Video post production processing at 45
Mbps and 156 Mbps.
We think it is important that such projects are
promoted not only bilaterally like Japan-CI.S. but also
globally. In this context, the quadrilateral meeting on
International Joint Experiments for Satellite High Data
Rate (HDR) Communications proposed by my ministry,
was held in Hawaii in November 1995 with participants
from Japan, U.S., Europe, and Canada. In this meet-
ing, we agreed to cooperate in establishing the Gil
through satellite communications. As a result of this
meeting, we are to promote Japan-Europe High Data
Rate Satellite Communications Experiments Project,
and we are now in the process of holding discussions
with ESA [Fig. SA 303].
As everybody is aware, 1992 was selected by
the United Nations as "International Space Year" (ISY)
and a motion was approved suggesting that advanced
countries should transfer developed space technolo-
gies to the developing countries. Based on the spirit
of ISY, Japan started the PARTNERS Project among
the countries in the Asia Pacific Region aimed at
Future Image of Space Communications System
and R&D Act i vit ies (1)
F j xed-Sate I Lite_serviceJFSSl
To provide hi gh data
rate and high
performance satet 1 ite
communications Seryicr
el lite already launched or planned
litiologies to be developed in next 10 years
Trans-Pacific High Data Rate (HDR) Satellite Communications Experiments
Japan
Hawaii
The United States
Fig. SA-302
.lapan-liurope High Data Nate (Hl)(\) Satellite Communications Experiments
Intelsat
Europe
Japan
Fig. SA-303
developing human resources among other objectives
[Fig. SA-304].
This project was conducted using the
Engineering Test Satellite Type-Five (ETS-V), launched
in 1987. The L-Band transponder was used on many
experiments such as for Distance-Medicine,
Distance-Education, Technical-Science, etc. The fol-
lowing chart shows past and planned launches.
Engineering Test
Satellite
Launched
Date
Launch
Vehicle
Price (hundred
million yen)
Contractor
ETS— V
1987. 8.27
JAPAN
1 50
JAPAN
E T S —VI
1994. 8.28
JAPAN
4 1 5
JAPAN
ETS —VII
1997. plan
JAPAN
32 1
JAPAN
COMETS
1997. plan
JAPAN
442
JAPAN
31
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
PARTNERS PROJECT (Apr/92 - Mar/96)
C ) Satellite Radio Wave Propagation Tests,
Distance Education Trials
# : Distance Medicine Trials
ETS-V GEO/150E
[University, Laboratryl
[Hospital]
[Hospital]
Fig. SA-304
In the U.S., there is a similar project conducted
by the University of Hawaii called the PEACESAT
Project, which covers the South-Pacific region. These
two projects are closely related. Over the past three
years, experiments conducted as part of the PART-
NERS project indicate that satellite communications
are effective in the fields of Distance-Education, Dista
nee-Medicine, etc. In addition, the PARTNERS project
was highly regarded by the participating countries.
The ETS-V is coming to the end of its life. The
experiments were finished at the end of March 1996.
However, there are many expectations for a continua-
tion of the experiments in the countries of the Asia
Pacific region. Therefore we have decided to conduct
the next project called Post-PARTNERS project, which
will utilize a private sector satellite, and we are now in
the preparing stage [Fig SA-305].
Image of POST - PARTNERS system
Japan
< outlines til
A*itf-Parific region
s*
<^
Internet
Fig. SA-305
The Information Society Ministerial Conference
will be held in South Africa this May, with participants
32
from developing countries. It is true it is very
important to build a future Global Information
Infrastructure using advanced techniques, but
communication systems that are inexpensive and
simple are required for developing countries which
do not have sufficient public telephone lines. For
example, a system which can be connected to the
Internet conveniently might be of more importance
than a high-tech system. As a result, systems such
as the PARTNERS Project Systems have a role to
play in the future Gil.
The progress made to date in satellite commu-
nication technology is outstanding. It is not only
quantitative, such as the increase of the capacity of
Intelsat, but also very qualitative, which can be
seen from the appearance of global satellite com-
munication networks using non-geostationary
satellites.
Future Image of Space Communications System
and R&D Act i vi ties (2)
Mub i (e-Satel lite Service (MSS;
Fig. SA-306
Japan has been promoting research and develop-
ment of satellite communication technology for 20
years. Based upon that experience, my ministry asked
the Telecommunications Technology Council in
January 1995 to report on the future direction of
space communications systems and R&D promotion
reflecting the changes now taking place around the
world. The conclusions will be made public in May.
The council notes that the meaning of R&D for satel-
lite communication is:
• to create new services;
• to make revolutionary progress over a wide area
of technologies; and
• to contribute not only to domestic but also
global information infrastructure.
The council also predicts the future images of fixed-,
mobile-, and broadcasting-satellite services. The sum-
mary is as follows [Fig. SA - 306]:
• With fixed-satellite services, the capacity and
performance will be high. And Gbps class satellite
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
technology and on-board ATM switching technology
will be developed.
• In the mobile-satellite service, the non-GSO
system which provides global services and the GSO
system which provides domestic or regional services
will be operated. And a multimedia system including
visual communications will be promoted.
• In satellite broadcasting [Fig. SA-307], high
performance systems such as HDTV and ISDB which
can provide multimedia service will be operated.
Japan shall try to improve its technology to create
new services, to promote R&D, and to contribute inter-
nationally, based on the conclusion of the council
which will issue its report in May.
In closing, I would like to express my great appre-
ciation once again to the CIS Space Foundation for the
privilege of taking part in this famous symposium. I
would like to use this occasion to express my sincere
wish that satellite communications continue their swift
development, along with ever-advancing space tech-
nology. Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Future Image of Space Communications System
and R&D Activities (3)
Satellite Broadcast ingiBSS)
I'NutBS) E rs-* Emir;
Fig. SA-307
cy coordination, which the lower altitude systems are
not immune from. I think anyone who's been following
these systems in the press sees that there's a lot of
negotiations that have to go on to ensure that the
spectrum is available and that there aren't any interfer-
ence issues that are raised. I think it really depends on
the economics of the application.
Mr. Aldridge: Mr. Takada, would you like to comment?
Q&A
Mr. Aldridge: First question I'll read — I'll just come to
them as I go — "due to the limited area in the geosyn-
chronous belt, is the future of global communications
moving to larger constellations of smaller more-capa-
ble payloads such as Motorola's proposed Iridium con-
stellation?" I think what you're asking is that, again, are
we going to think about lower altitude distributed com-
munications systems — is that the future of global com-
munications? Is there anyone in particular who would
like to respond to that?
Mr. Gianelli: The answer is: It depends. I'll cut to the
chase. I think for each application and for each busi-
ness endeavor, the choice of the constellation is really
going to be driven by the application and the econom-
ics. For example, the current systems of low altitude
systems — the Big LEOS and the Little LEOS — are real-
ly driven to provide worldwide mobile communica-
tions. Those systems in and of themselves are going
to be rather expensive to put up and we'll have to have
a fair amount of the constellation in place prior to the
revenue stream starting. In contrast, those with some
of the GEO-mobile systems, those areas will provide
very focused geostationary mobile communications
over particular regions. And again, each one of those
systems is attempting to solve a slightly different prob-
lem. Now with respect to the issue of coordination or
the overcrowding of the geosynchronous arc, I think it
really boils down to that of landing rights and frequen-
Mr. Takada: I believe that communication policy
should provide anyone the opportunity to communi-
cate anywhere and anytime. Two, as an objective, we
should develop communication links to anyone and
anywhere, in the car, on the street, and so forth. To
that end, we would have to develop a variety of com-
munication networks using satellites or terrestrial
mobile systems fixed optic fiber networks.
Mr. Aldridge: Next question is, "Dr. [Krishnaswamy]
Kasturirangan discussed how satellites could improve
irrigation and water and snow sensing; specifically
what satellites are being used for this purpose?
Dr. Kasturirangan: We are currently using the optical
remote sensing data for this purpose. What we try to
do is to look at the extent of cover, the recessional fea-
ture of the snow as the snow level melts, and then
there is a model which is used to estimate the
snowmelt runoff that gets into the reservoir. Of course,
the questions related to the personal distinction of the
snow with respect to its age is another thing for which
we need to look at different developments, particularly
thermal, IR, and microwaves. The other thing, the we
use only optical sensing. Here is actually the question
of estimating the level of water, the availability on a
periodic basis and then pontification of that using,
again, the question of looking at the surface area with
the models converting it into volume, and then trans-
ferring it into context of the in the downstream for
radius agricultural related activators. So this is also
done with optical sensing.
33
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Mr. Aldridge: Before we go on to the next questions,
Dr. Kasturirangan and Dr. Silvestrini have a press con-
ference and are leaving in just a few more minutes.
Are there any questions from the audience that would
be specifically addressed that we could respond to
now before they have to depart? There are no more
here in my stack of questions that I can see. Maybe
there are a few coming up. These are specifically for
them. OK, Arturo, what will be the future of Landsat 7?
Dr. Silvestrini: I hope that it is going to go up. I have
been associated with Landsat 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd like to
see a 7. I'm sure that somebody in the administration
and Congress will make sure that that thing goes up. I
don't know more than that.
Mr. Aldridge: Dr. K., worldwide dissemination of edu-
cation via satellite requires inexpensive television
reception, especially in underdeveloped areas. Is India
conducting research into development of very cheap
TV receivers?
But there is one aspect which we are looking
into, and that is with respect to the use of the
communication transponder and the capacity
for the communication transponder.
Dr. Kasturirangan: Right now we're in the process of
proving of methodology for conducting education
experiments, particularly, as I've said, in those three or
four areas including developmental communications.
And these, of course, do require massive deployment
of receiver systems. The current level of receiver sys-
tems utilization are on a community basis, for exam-
ple, a total village consisting of say 300-400 popula-
tion will use one television for this kind of program.
This is the approach so that we can cut down the
number. But, still, if you talk of India, you are talking of
600,000 villages — so that is a kind of number then
that one talks of. The current system certainly is a little
on the higher side, economically. We are not making
any special efforts to look into the cost reduction of
television, but we are convinced that the first thing we
will actually use will be black and white TV. Secondly, if
we are able to produce enough numbers, there are
probably production methods by which we should be
able to cut down the cost. But there is one aspect
which we are looking into, and that is with respect to
the use of the communication transponder and the
capacity for the communication transponder. Here we
are looking into the compression of data since we are
not really looking into the dynamic aspects of a scene.
The compression ratio of between 8 and 16 or even
higher is quite feasible for this kind of application. On
34
that part, certainly we are doing some work.
Mr. Aldridge: OK, here's one for Arturo. What sort of
effect has been expended for multi-spectral mapping
of the ocean? How can we use that data for better
ocean resource management, such as fishing, coral
reefs and so forth?
Dr. Silvestrini: There are several initiatives that are
going on right now, several satellites with ocean sen-
sors. None of them, however, has reached the point
where we can say that we are totally confident.
Everybody's starting it and I think it's the next step in
terms of ocean sensing. Even the Indian satellites have
sensors to do that, or will have in addition to what they
have now.
Dr. Kasturirangan: I would add a word to what Arturo
said about this. Currently on board IRS-P3 we are flying
a modular opto -electronic scanner system, which is a
13 channel spectrometer designed and developed by
the German Space Agency. This is basically for ocean
applications. The more advanced version of this, in
terms of an ocean color monitor, is currently under
development and that will be followed by a multi-fre-
quency scanning microvave raiometer. This is a 500-
meter resolution sensor which is also under develop-
ment. These we plan to fly in the IRS-P4 satellite.
Currently the forecast of potential fishing grounds has
been operationalized in India using the NOAA thermal
data, and that is very effective because the fish catch
has gone up many times. We have recieved reports
from the fishermen claiming fish catches increased by
a factor of 3 to 4. What this ocean monitor will do is to
extend this for deep sea fishing because you really deal
with the parameters related to ocean primary productiv-
ity. So this we propose to have in the next satellite in
the form of an ocean color monitor.
Mr. Aldridge: This one is also for Arturo. What are the
major obstacles to the effective commercialization of
remote sensing? Very simple question.
Dr. Silvestrini: Believe it or not, I think that the world
is going towards commercialization of Earth-sensing
much more than it was before. If you look around
France, Russia, Canada, and now the Indians, they are
all commercializing their data, all of them. We have
been doing it for the United States. Mow there is a
problem here in the United States only. But, thank
God, it's limited to a very restricted group of people in
the administration who believe somehow that data are
distributed free for everybody. And the rest of the world
is going the other way. Are they dangerous? Yes and
no. For us, no — now. Because we have the data, they
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
don't. But later, they might. They might flood the world
with free data, which will kill the commercial efforts of
the Indians, the French, and of everybody else. That is
the major problem we have. Thank you.
Mr. Aldridge: OK, I think we ought to let Dr. K. and
Arturo go. They have a press conference and we'll get
on with it. Thank you very much. OK, Bob Minor's got
off easy, so far. So the next one goes to him. The GPS
system has clearly established a track record for Earth
navigation, but what is the future of accurate positional
data for space navigation, such as docking, Space
Station support, rendezvous or return to the moon?
Mr. Takada: I'm not representing the Japanese gov-
ernment on foreign policy. But of course China is an
important country in Asia, and we always are seeking
to strengthen economical and cultural relations with
China. But, unfortunately, up-to-date, in the satellite
communications field, we have not heard any news
related to future cooperative projects. Thank you.
Mr. Aldridge: Mike Gianelli, you mentioned that the
only viable uses of space were communications and
navigation. I think you meant commercial in that case.
Do you believe that there is a need for continued
access to space for other basic scientific research?
Mr. Minor: I don't think there's any question if you
read all the trade journals and you see what the plans
are for the future, and I'm sure for many of these gen-
tlemen here whose companies build a lot of satellites
that many space navigation are going to be a very big
part. I can give you one that I personally have some
knowledge on. On the Space Shuttle today we use
some of the traditional methods of doing space navi-
gations, and I know very shortly we're already flying
GPS receivers on the shuttle, and very soon we hope
to have on board a triple redundant navigation system
on the shuttle and I think most of the applications and
many future applications on satellites is certainly going
to be the navigation of choice also in the satellite world
and I don't think that's going to be measured in
decades. I think it's in years. Maybe somebody else
here would like to add to that, but that's the way I
would see that.
Mr. Aldridge: Another question for you, Bob. Will the
CSEL system communicate via satellite or ground to
air radio? The second part is, if via satellite will there
be a civil version for backpackers, hunters, etc.?
Mr. Minor: First, the CSEL — which is a new product
and, as we mentioned earlier, Capt. O'Grady helped
demonstrate the need for such a thing — is going to be
an item that is two-way communications. To give you a
little comparison, Capt. O'Grady knew where he was,
but the only way that he could tell other people where
he was was from an open radio communications. With
respect to what we're going to be doing with CSEL, is
that this will be a two-way communications. It will be
encrypted. It will have an encrypted mode that will keep
that person very well protected. It will be via satellite.
Mr. Aldridge: Mr. Takada, do you expect to have much
cooperation with the Chinese government in the next
few years?
Mr. Gianelli: The context of the remarks had to do
with commercial uses, where independent commercial
entities would actually be able to make a profit and
stay in business long term. I think on the navigation
side of this equation, in terms of commercial naviga-
tion devices for everything from autos to yachts to air-
craft, and the telecommunications industry, we've seen
that. With apologies to Arturo here, I left out remote
sensing because I think the jury's still out as to what's
going to happen with remote sensing. There are a
number of commercial ventures which are starting up
and this is like where the commercial communications
satellite industry was almost 35 years ago. Certainly
there remains a need for access to space for scientific
research, which is really going to define and help
develop those new commercial applications.
The GPS system has clearly established a track
record for Earth navigation, but what is the
future of accurate positional data for space
navigation, such as docking, Space Station
support, rendezvous or return to the moon?
Mr. Aldridge: This is one that I think that you and Mr.
Takada can answer. Due to the long acquisition and
development process involved with developing a con-
stellation, is it possible that the global information
highway will outpace technological developments of
space-based communication capabilities, such as how
the 2.8 kilobit fax modem is out pacing conventional
phone lines?
Mr. Gianelli: There are a couple questions wrapped up
in that. I think the first one has to do with the rate of
returns on communication technology as compared to
the lifetimes of some of the assets that we're putting
into orbit. Your typical geostationary communications
satellite will have a lifetime from 10 to 17 years, and if
we look at the rate at which we're turning with
35
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
telecommunications technology, one might argue it's
almost every 18 months. So the question is, how do
you balance that? And I'm going to submit that that's
an architectural issue in terms of establishing the
communications architecture and the business plan.
You want to make sure that you insulate yourself from
that technology wave. 1 don't see these things as
being necessarily competitive, but 1 see them as being
complementary. There's this real thirst out there for
bandwidth for every consumer and user and we in the
telecommunications industry have to be smart in how
we plan these architectures to assure that we can try
and stay a step ahead of that demand curve to pro-
vide that bandwidth where it's needed and when it's
needed.
Mr. Aldridge: When do you expect satellite bandwidth
to become a limit to future growth?
I think as the demand increases in urban areas,
fiber will satisfy that demand, and in rural areas
we have a more distributed user population
for the high bandwidth, and satellite
communications can provide that quite easily.
Mr. Minor: That's a tough one to really answer. 1 think
that the way that the capability is certainly going from
a standpoint of what we're doing, the real issue is
going to be: Can we keep up with the applications on
the ground to how fast the satellite technology is grow-
ing? Both are moving fast and I think both the ground
and satellite technology are amazing everybody. I think
they're going to stay fairly well in kilter for some time
to come.
Mr. Gianelli: If I could, I'd like to add something to
that. If you look at what's changed in the satellite com-
munications industry, it started out with point-to-point
trunking services. We talked INTELSAT and Early Bird,
and now with the advent of fiber, yes, you're going to
hear a space telecommunications guy say that terres-
trial fiber and space telecommunications are comple-
mentary, because the strength of fiber is going to pro-
vide an awful lot of bandwidth. The disadvantage is
that it takes a long time to put that infrastructure in
place. On the other hand, the strength of space com-
munications systems is that it can provide that instant
infrastructure to places which it's hard to reach with
that mile of fiber. So I see these two technologies are
complementary and that comes to the next point: 1
don't really believe there's going to be a limit on the
bandwidth. I think as the demand increases in urban
areas, fiber will satisfy that demand, and in rural areas
we have a more distributed user population for the
high bandwidth, and satellite communications can
provide that quite easily.
Mr. Aldridge: I think you've also answered this ques-
tion. Given the advantage in high rate for fiber optic
links, what is the future of satellite communications
between fixed points. It is a combination. There are
cases where fiber is right, and there are cases where
satellites are right.
Mr. Takada: I think the relation between satellite and
optical fiber is very difficult for us to foresee and what
direction we are going. In my experience, three years
ago my ministry made public a plan to establish
nationwide optical fiber networks by 2010. After that,
the satellite industry people came to complain about
that strategy, saying that individual communications
will be inevitable in the future. So now we are going to
clarify volume of our policy prospective as I explained
in my presentation, so next month we will have an
intermediate target for the relations between terrestrial
and satellite links. Thank you.
Mr. Aldridge: Bob Minor, do you believe that the
worldwide navigation system should be managed by
the CIS. or be under the control of an international
organization?
Mr. Minor: Consistent with the president's policy that
he just came out with, I would certainly like to see it,
because it can make economic sense to be basically a
Cl.S.-driven system, but as the president said, I think
he plans to open that up certainly to a policy board
with, I'm sure, a broad area of representation. And
hopefully in that respect there will be an international
voice about one system that we can all enjoy across
this world.
Mr. Aldridge: How can international cooperation in
space be accomplished while protecting the intellectu-
al property rights of the participating companies? That
is, technology transferred via an international coopera-
tive space program can dilute a company's competi-
tive advantage in the international marketplace.
Mr. Minor: I think the foundation of the cooperation
has to be mutually beneficial, and I see this protection
of the intellectual property being no different than pro-
tection of intellectual property when we do a business
deal with a Rockwell or a TRW. When you enter into
one of these deals it's because you're going to get
more out of it than you're going to give. I believe that
that's the spirit we have to enter the international
cooperation. It really has to be a two-way street, it has
36
SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COOPERATION
to be a partnership, and there has to be mutual benefit.
If there isn't mutual benefit, it's really not a partnership.
I think those problems can be worked. They are thorny
problems and they take a lot of soul-searching, but I
think they're very workable.
Mr. Aldridge: Anyone want to add to that?
Mr. Takada: In trade negotiations, we have many times
from the U.S. government themselves in text of prop-
erty guides so I hope the intellectual property is some-
thing like property of all mankind. But we have to
respect that property, so I think it's better to have an
environment to use more such property for the benefit
of all mankind.
Mr. Aldridge: The question of global communication
standards is admirable. However, its implementation is
extremely difficult, in light of the competition for busi-
ness negotiations. Should companies developing new
systems provide information in open forum to promote
establishing standards? How much risk does this incur
and how much return is there in doing so? I think what
they're talking about here is, how can we best imple-
ment these standards in this environment?
Mr. Gianelli: I always start with the customer, and
when we talk about these standards, most of the new
applications are oriented toward or aimed at the indi-
vidual consumer. I'm an individual consumer as well as
you are. The thing that drives us all nuts is when box A
doesn't play with box B. I think if we look to the mar-
ketplace, we're going to see that that's what the mar-
ketplace is really looking for: standards which are
going to promote affordability. This is like the interna-
tional cooperation question, in protection of intellectu-
al property. These are tough issues to work. There are
a lot of equities that get wrapped up here. I think the
global mobile personal telecommunications standard
is a prime example. I think there are four — or is it
five? — mobile phone standards around the world.
GSM, the one that's used in Europe, I think, is the
most popular, and it sure would be great if you could
take your little hand-held cellphone and truly roam
worldwide. As a consumer that's what I would want to
do. I think if we look to the marketplace, the market-
place is going to demand those types of standards.
The creation of proprietary standards or interfaces,
while they may give a particular company an advan-
tage in the short term, I think, in the longer term, stan-
dards are going to be the way to go. If you look at the
personal computer industry, you can see a pretty good
example of that.
Mr. Aldridge: Mike, since you're still on, the other
question is, what are your views on the licensing
approval allocation of radio frequencies for satellite
developers?
Mr. Gianelli: We don't favor auctions, because that
really puts the leverage in terms of folks that have the
most money to put on the table up-front, and I think
that's not what the telecommunications industry is all
about. We'd like to see a little speedier process. There
were some proposals made by the Australian govern-
ment, or some interest groups in Australia, about actu-
ally having some earnest money or due process
towards using the slots. I think the orbital spectrum is
pretty much like real estate. If you've got the corner
lot, you're in control. The process is not perfect, it
does seem to work, and I think there are some pro-
posals on the table to improve it.
Mr. Aldridge: Bob Minor, you're now experimenting
with the idea of how firefighters can effectively use GPS
to track their personnel and equipment. What limita-
tions affect the GPS signal in the time of crisis — smoke,
cloud cover, changes in weather, dust debris, etc.?
Mr. Minor: From a GPS standpoint, those kind of situ-
ations are very limited to us, and particularly as we
look on to the next generation of 2-F satellites that will
be, as we mentioned earlier, a second civilian frequen-
cy that will help us even more from the ionosphere
and those kinds of things that do detract from the
accuracy. There are really no limitations there. It's a
fantastic system.
Mr. Aldridge: This is to our communications expert.
We all see the explosion in communications around
the world. The question is, what commercial or gov-
ernmental activity is needed to ensure the privacy for
individuals in satellite-based communications?
Mr. Gianelli: I think what the question is poking at is
the issue of export controls for encryption devices, and
there has been some progress there. I think again it's
an issue of standards and having a governmental poli-
cy, and I believe the G.S. government at least does
have a policy on export for encryption devices for busi-
ness and personal use.
Mr. Takada: I think the new technology has presented
us with new problems, including the protection of the
contents for privacy or protection of children from not
getting information. In Japan there are many discus-
sions related to the new services and new technology
and so called convergence of communications and
37
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
privacy. Broadcasting is a public communications.
Now we are facing the phenonemon of convergence of
communications and broadcasting, so maybe we shall
develop a new scheme to deregulate communications
in the broadcasting industry.
Mr. Aldridge: I'm going to modify this question some-
what to make it more intriguing. Will Irridium, which
means the large LEO low-Earth constellations, put
INMARSAT, which means GEO, out of business. I
think the debate is that with all these large numbers of
low-Earth orbit satellites for communications: Is this
going to put the big satellites in GEO-orbit out of busi-
ness?
Mr. Gianelli: The answer is: It depends. Both systems
have some strengths and some not-so-strong areas.
As I said earlier, a large system like Irridium will provide
relatively disadvantaged users a relatively straightfor-
ward way to communicate with the satellite system.
Unfortunately, a system like that requires, because of
the altitude, most of the constellation to be up and
running to be able to provide initial service, so there's
a great deal of infrastructure that has to be put up and
has to be operating and replenished. On the other
hand, I think the question was asking about ICO as
well, which is an intermediate orbit satellite system that
requires about 10 satellites to have the full constella-
tion, and it can start operation with six of those satel-
lites in orbit. It has some advantages over Irridium with
respect to the look angle to the satellite position in the
urban area. You'll have a higher elevation angle to the
satellite. The investment to start a system like ICO is
somewhat smaller than one like Irridium because of
the amount of infrastructure that's required. Then if
you go to geostationary orbit, you can focus the cover-
age on a geographic region. When you put the first
satellite up the revenue stream can start. There are
some real economic and business differences between
those three systems. Personally I think there's enough
room for all of them to survive and thrive because
there is a lot of demand out there for personal
telecommunications services. 1 think the future for
geostationary satellites is very bright.
Mr. Aldridge: I have one last question that will be
addressed to all three members of our panel. What do
you see as the future of commercial space beyond
Earth orbit?
Mr. Minor: The first thing that we have to attack before
we can talk about commercial applications beyond
low-Earth orbit is transportation costs. And if we can't
come up with significantly lowering the transportation
costs, the opportunity for commercial applications
beyond LEO are going to be severely hampered.
Certainly putting that aside, we, like a lot of compa-
nies, have looked at what are some of the applications.
This question is a commercial one and 1 won't get into
the military ones, but certainly things such as lunar
mining — certainly as power generation there are some
applications here that could be extremely advanta-
geous to us here on Earth. But the major issue is how
much does it cost to get there.
Mr. Gianelli: I think Bob said it pretty well — and
maybe I'm too pedestrian in my vision here and am
maybe focused too much in the near term. I think that
to really keep on fielding these applications, the cost
for access to space has got to come down, and, as I
said earlier, in my remarks that's one of the reasons
why we're doing a number of these partnering deals to
increase the competition and have different approach-
es. 1 personally have not given a lot of thought to com-
mercial applications beyond Earth orbit.
Mr. Takada: I am not proficient in commercial applica-
tions so my hope, from a policy viewpoint, is to pro-
vide any kind of services cheaper and cheaper to the
consumers.
Mr. Aldridge: Well, in the tradition of the U.S. Space
Foundation, we once again will end on time and we
appreciate your attention. We appreciate your attention
to the panel, and my appreciation to all the panel
members for their time and efforts to present their
views to this audience. Thank you.
38
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
Earth Sensing, Communication and Navigation Applications
Master Steven R Scott
Moderator: Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space Systems Division
Session Roy Gibson
Chair: Former Director General
European Space Agency and
British Space Agency
Mr. Scott: Welcome back. Let's get going again with
this afternoon's session. We'll now expand on this
morning's theme of Earth Sensing, Communication,
and Navigation Applications. Chairing this session is
Roy Gibson. Roy has been director-general of both the
European Space Agency and the British Space Agency
and brings with him a wealth of international space
experience. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome
Professor Roy Gibson.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I am
grateful for the invitation to chair this panel and to
make some short introductory remarks. Subsequent
speakers here are all distinguished practitioners, and
each one is going to give us some of his experience —
the first three related to Earth observation, two more
broadly, and Dave Thompson on communications.
The speakers are very well-known, so to try to keep in
our allotted time, I'm not going to repeat the introduc-
tions. And by that I don't mean any lack of respect for
my colleagues. So now let's get down to business.
I want to talk, if I may, about public and private
sector cooperation. Mahatma Gandhi was once asked
by journalists what he thought of Western civilization,
and after considering, he said he thought it would be a
very good idea.
We're not quite as bad off as that in public and
private sector cooperation, but there is a thought to
bear in mind. Space activities are often divided
between those financed by the public sector, like space
Speakers: Dr. John S. MacDonald
President
MacDonald Detwiler, Canada
Dr. Murray Felsher
Director
North American Remote Sensing
Industries Association
David T. Edwards
Executive Vice President
EOSAT
Vice Adm. William E. Ramsey, USN
(Ret.)
Vice President
Corporate Business Development
CTA, Inc.
W. David Thompson
President
Spectrum Astro, Inc.
shuttles and science projects, and those in which the
private sector has taken the lead — principally the vari-
ous types of telecommunication satellite programs.
But even in the extreme cases, the distinction between
public and private is perhaps an oversimplification,
because even when the program depends essentially
on private sector money, there is generally and
inevitably an important public sector involvement;
however unwanted this may be.
Even on a national basis, space programs these
days can't really go ahead unless there is some contri-
bution, in inverted commas, from the public sector.
Even though the contribution may sometimes take the
form of extorting for frequency slots, or, at the other
end of the spectrum, of fairly altruistically help in show-
ing compliance with international treaty obligations.
Similarly, with international cooperative pro-
grams, there's a need for a green light from the public
authorities in virtually all cooperating states. When the
program only concerns space agencies like NASA or
the European Space Agency, they can generally be
relied upon to deliver the necessary approvals from the
non-space agency people, but it is a process that takes
a long time.
Noticeably, in many parts of the world, the
authority of the national and even the international
space agencies is much narrower than it used to be. In
most regions, an increasing number of ministries,
departments, and agencies have to be consulted, and
this consultation is by no means just a formality. The
39
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
services provided by satellites — particularly what we
now call the applications satellite — nearly always fall
into the legitimate bailiwick of an authority other than
a space agency. It has thus become a most important
function of the larger space agencies to attempt to
educate their colleagues in the basic facts of space
activities. All too soon these entities are setting up their
own bureaus and have their own space gurus. You'll
understand that I'm speaking on the basis of European
experience, and I don't know to what extent my
remarks are relevant in the United States.
In Europe, the commission of the European
Union, which is commonly referred to as "Brussels," is
also taking a much increased interest in space affairs
recently, not excluding defense matters. It's not, at
least not so far as I am aware, an attempt to take over
the European Space Agency, but simply that such
things as industrial policy, industrial trade relations,
and telecommunications liberalization which are all
subjects that go well beyond the competence, in the
legal sense of the word, of the European Space
Agency. In fact, a new policy statement is expected
very soon from the commission in Brussels outlining
its future intentions in relation to all sorts of aspects
of space. And I foresee a steady increase in Brussels'
involvement.
My feeling is, that unless European ministers
get some real proof that Earth observation
is moving in this direction, in the foreseeable
future they are going to be reaching to turn
off the funding tap.
Mow whereas the communications space sec-
tor has been dominated by the private sector people,
with the public sector only involved peripherally, the
Earth observation sector is still largely the preserve of
the public sector. Remember, I'm speaking mainly of
Europe. Earth observation satellites have been virtually
all financed either by the European Space Agency or
by EUMETSAT, which is the European organization
that groups the meteorological services together, or
else by the national space agencies, principally the
French CNES with its SPOT family.
Although for decades, governments have been
encouraging space commercialization (I know it is a
somewhat discredited term), the space element has
been done by the public sector, and the private sector
has been active practically entirely only on the ground,
and thus we have developed private companies like
French SPOT Image, Swedish SATTELITBILD, and in
the U.K. the National Remote Sensing Center, Ltd. And
all three of these are charged with processing, archiv-
ing, and distributing satellite imagery, and they sell to a
variety of customers. We should note, I think, at this
40
stage that a large proportion of their sales are still to
the public sector rather than to the private sector.
These three companies, which have been
formed in Europe, together with many other smaller
value-added companies, seem to make a reasonable
living, but we need to remember that their combined
turnover is probably not more than $80 million U.S.
Eighty million U.S. dollars doesn't go very far in terms
of financing satellite systems such as SPOT or the
European ERS. These companies have been doing an
excellent job in showing how satellite imagery, includ-
ing radar, can be used. They've certainly increased the
user community, but they are still dependent on the
satellites' being provided by space agencies.
And this is a snag. In my view, many govern-
ments, certainly in Europe, are getting tired of putting
R&D money into satellites that are, in fact, operational
or semioperational systems. And there is a real danger
that this funding source will dry up before we've found
an alternative. It would, I think, be unrealistic to expect
the private sector to jump in straightaway with 100
percent funding for follow- on systems, such as ERS.
Nor am I really sure that we should be aiming to con-
tinue with the same sort of multipurpose satellites.
Continuity in my book can only be assured,
first, by accepting a transition period during which
the public sector provides part of the funding, either
in cash or in the form of a bankable guarantee, that it
is going to buy the service or the information when it
has been produced, and, second, by moving to
smaller satellites — smaller satellite systems designed
to meet specific user needs. By this I mean, paying
customers.
My feeling is, unless European ministers get
some real proof that Earth observation is moving in
this direction, in the foreseeable future they are going
to be reaching to turn off the funding tap.
This is a spirit, I think, in which Radarsat and
its marketing arm, Radarsat International, have been
conceived. I think Canada has once again got it right; I
hope that we in Europe are going to be able to put
something similar together. Because there are a lot of
complicating factors, not least the fact that there is an
increased call for Earth observation satellite data to be
classed as scientific and essential for the many big
international climate and related programs. It is good
to see that these programs are getting such support,
but it is extremely hard to reconcile the needs of scien-
tific programs with the imperative to encourage the
private sector to invest its money in Earth observation.
Scientists are wonderful people but they're not gener-
ally flush with funds to buy data.
The Committee of Earth Observation Satellites,
CEOS, which Arturo Silvestrini mentioned this morn-
ing, is an organization that isn't really an organization.
It is more of a club of all space agencies and those
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
who put money into space agencies. It's only now
starting to come to grips with the needs of the com-
mercial Earth observation community. This isn't a criti-
cism because it has been doing some excellent work,
but thus far, CEOS has been concentrating almost
entirely on scientific users. And some of us, like Arturo,
people from SPOT Image and others, have been trying
to open a dialogue with CEOS in the hope of having
the views of the private sector taken into account by
the big players in the public sector at a very early
stage. Particularly in the field of Earth observation, the
future to a large extent, in my view, depends on a bet-
ter understanding between the two sectors.
For the purposes of dialogue with CEOS and
with regional authorities, European companies have
joined together under the banner of the European
Association of Remote Sensing Companies. And
we're hoping similar organizations will be formed in
the United States and in other regions, and I know
that some progress has been made. In my view, it is
only in this way that we can get the private sector to
influence the international public sector in Earth
observation.
There is of course a whole new field of space
activity opening up for cooperation between the public
and private sectors — that of defense, including interna-
tional defense space programs. Progress has certainly
been made nationally, at least in some countries, to
effect a convergence between the two. I believe in the
next year we shall start to see some international initia-
tives for the same sort. It isn't that the Holy Ghost has
come over these people and caused them to get
together. It is that money is rather shorter than it was
five years ago, and needs are rather larger.
Certainly in Europe, there are signs that nation-
al and bilateral or trilateral defense projects are going
to give way gradually over the next 10 years to plan
European defense space programs and possibly, hope-
fully, transatlantic ones too. But before this can hap-
pen, we've a lot of work to do understanding how best
these two species, the civil and the military, can inter-
breed without producing a monster.
In brief, I believe that the implications in Earth
observation by satellite are going to expand in the
coming years through a more intelligent cooperation
between different countries, but also by mixes of pub-
lic and private entities. Mow we've got some useful
examples of what can be done, but I suggest it
behooves the private sector to step up the pace.
Government departments and agencies have got very
important functions and qualities. There is even one
of them in England that pays me a pension, and so
I shouldn't knock them; but we've all recognized, I
think, over the years, that innovation and new style
of joint ventures are more likely to spring from entre-
preneurial companies than from a government depart-
Earth Observation is a global
INFORMATION Business
It begins with a set of measurements which
are:
• taken by instruments which are:
• carried on spacecraft
Earth observation measurements combined
with other data produce INFORMATION
Fig. ES-101
ment. And so far we have not been all that active. But
it's getting really very late, and I hand over to John
MacDonald.
Dr. MacDonald: Thank you very much. In keeping
with the theme of the symposium — "Space: Enhancing
Life on Earth" — I think many of us believe, certainly I
think the people in the first four seats on that panel
believe, that spacebome remote sensing systems will
form the backbone of the information system that our
descendants will use to manage mankind's affairs on
this planet in the future in a sustainable way.
But today as Roy (Gibson) has already out-
lined, remote sensing, at least in North America and
Europe, is at an important crossroads. What I like to
call the pretty picture phase of our field is hopefully
behind us and the future success of spacebome obser-
vation, at least in North America and Europe, I believe
will depend on the degree to which we stop thinking
about Earth observation as a space business and start
thinking about it as an information business.
Earth observation is a global information busi-
ness [Fig. ES-101). Space is a means to an end; it is
not an end in itself. This global information business
begins with a set of measurements that are taken by
instruments carried on spacecraft. On that slide in
that first bullet the reduction in the size of the fonts
as I move down through the sub-bullets is deliberate.
The most important thing is the information; the
least important thing is the vehicle that happens to
carry the instrument there to get the information.
Earth observation measurements, when combined
with other types of data, produce information. I note
combination with other types of data. It is very rare
for a set of Earth observation measurements by
themselves to solve a problem.
The ultimate purpose of an operational Earth
observation system is to deliver measurements, which,
when combined with other information, can be trans-
formed into useful information that serves the needs —
remember that word, needs — of a community of users
41
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
The Delivery System
Other data and
Information :
Sd*ntiflc U**r
Fig. ES-102
who have an economic, social, or strategic require-
ment for the information the system produces. That's
the objective of an operational system. If, and there is
a technical point to be made here, if these measure-
ments are to be successful in accomplishing that
objective, they must be accurately calibrated. This
implies we must treat them quantitatively rather than
qualitatively, and they must be accurately located in a
predetermined coordinate system.
I want to just digress for a moment to support
something that Arturo Silvestrini said this morning.
This is a concept that has always been understood by
the Indian Space Agency, ISRO, the Indian Space
Research Organization. Like Arturo, I have been inter-
acting with the Indian people for more than 20 years,
and I can tell you that they have always had their focus
on this kind of concept.
Let me begin the rest of the talk, then, with a
couple of definitions. I think it is important that we
understand the operational user and the scientific user.
The operational user is one who uses information
derived from Earth observation data for routine environ-
mental or resource management, strategic or mapping
purposes, and so on. Such a person participates direct-
ly in the economy. Output from such a person has
direct economic, social, or strategic value. Remember
the word value. Information derived from Earth obser-
vation data therefore has economic, social, or strategic
value to such a user. The operational user is a genera-
tor of wealth, one who directly tries to improve the
quality of life on our planet. Considering the point of
view of the system itself, the operational user is a cus-
tomer, and those of us in the private sector all know
that the customer is the most important person you
deal with, because customers pay the freight.
The scientific user, on the other hand, is one
who uses Earth observation information and data to
gain an understanding about how such data can be
required and to gain an understanding of how the
Earth system functions. Such a user is a generator of
knowledge. Such a user is not a customer. The scientif-
ic user isn't the customer. The scientific user — because
he or she creates the knowledge base — is part of the
delivery system. One problem we have here in the
United States — and in Canada and Europe — is that we
tend to regard the scientific user as a customer, but, as
Roy (Gibson) has already mentioned, the scientific
user doesn't have very much money.
The next overhead illustrates this in diagram-
matic form [Fig. ES-102J. Here you have the opera-
tional user on the left, and that vertical purple line is
meant to distinguish what is customer from what is
supplier. You have the spacecraft up in the sky. You
have the acquisition system, the archives, the process-
ing, and the distribution systems, the scientific user sit-
ting in there getting data from everywhere trying to fig-
ure out how to use this stuff, creating the knowledge
base — the knowledge base, by the way, upon which
everything else in the system depends.
On the left side, you have the operational user
taking Earth observation data and information, trying
to extract information by combining the data with
information from other sources. There is value in the
data and information that crosses that purple line.
There should be money going in the other direction,
which maintains an equilibrium in value. The concept
here: If you're going to build a business, you have to
have a market. A business is something that serves a
set of needs that have a certain value for which it is
compensated. What this concept of equilibrium of
value leads to is a potential pricing policy, which is on
the next overhead. And it's — what's sometimes
called — a two tier policy. Many people in this country
think this is a terrible thing to do, but it follows logical-
ly from the arguments I have made.
The operational user pays market price, in
which the value and the price are in equilibrium. I have
friends in the oil industry who think Arturo's prices are
cheap, because as one of my friends put it, "If I can
save two days on a seismic crew with a few thousand
dollars for an image, it more than pays for itself, and I
use only about 5 percent of the image." Scientific
users, on the other hand, because they are creating
the knowledge base, can pay cost of reproduction;
they can't afford anything else anyway and the knowl-
edge base has value, provided a) they're doing bona
fide research, and b) they undertake to take the results
in the public domain immediately. That's the quid pro
quo for getting free or low-cost data. Remember, the
scientific user is not a customer. The scientific user is
part of the delivery system.
I mentioned earlier that a technical aspect of
all of this is often overlooked. And it is the fact that
quantitative measurement is required for both scientif-
ic and operational use. Why? Because in order to
meaningfully combine Earth observation measure-
ments with data and information from other sources,
it must have some physical meaning. You must be
able to integrate it into your models. You must be able
42
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
to position it as accurately as you can, so you can get
the information from the same location and compare
it. Similarly, you must be able to reliably compare
information acquired at different times, possibly with
different instruments, and interpret the differences in
the context of what else is known about the area of
the globe that you are interested in. You can only do
this if you calibrate and locate accurately. And finally,
you express these quantitative measurements in terms
of physical variables that have meaning in relation to
the models used to describe the situation at hand and
predict future trends.
The next overhead diagrams this concept
[Fig. ES-103]. Here you have, on the left, physical
measurements from remote sensing sources, physical
measurements from other sources, and other data — a
description of what is. That's what a remote sensing
system does; it looks at the Earth and tells you what
is. A model of these Earth processes is your thinking
space that you're trying to understand. Models are
very often built by the scientific community and used
by the operational community. The operational user,
over there, is perturbing the model, understanding the
response, and trying to understand the implications of
these things so that action can be taken.
I've mentioned a little about calibration and
location (Fig. ES-104). This overhead is one that I put
together a number of years ago to emphasize the
importance of the digital elevation model. But it also
serves — when you've got only 15 minutes — to talk
about a couple of other things. On the left, it shows
the importance of the elevation model in terms of
reflectance modeling, but it also gives you an idea of
the complexity of the process of making optical mea-
surements from space. The atmosphere is what you
have to look through. You must compensate out the
atmosphere if you are going to calibrate the data. It's
a solvable problem; it's a complex problem. Have we
ever yet, at least in the civilian world, flown a sensor, a
high-resolution optical sensor, and at the same time
boresighted with it, flown an atmospheric sensor to
sense the atmosphere so you could correct for it? The
answer is no. I don't know why we're so stupid, but we
don't do those things.
The other two graphs up there simply show you
the importance of the digital elevation model in getting
the geometric correction of the data for the optical
case and the radar case. These are vitally important in
order to be able to integrate data, as I said before. Do
we have elevation models of the world? Not many. Even
the DTED-5 isn't good enough for many of the things
we try to do even, with the civilian sensors. And it does-
n't exist for very much of the world anyway. As for the
digital elevation model, we know now how to acquire it
from space using radar interferometry. The digital ele-
vation model is absolutely critical to being quantitative
about this stuff over the land.
Modeling Process
"What is"
Implications
Physical Measurements
from remote tenting sources
Physical Measurements /
from other aourees ~~~~~^J MODEL
\ Response ^iHHm
7 OF
\ WP
1 EARTH
wM
^^*\ PROCESSES
Other Data "^ \
/ Perturbations VlrliV
/ Operational
User
Fig. ES-103
Importance of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Reflec la r>c e Mooel I i ng
Reliel Distortion Correction
(optical instruments)
Fig. ES-104
In closing, I'd like to leave you with three ques-
tions, and I think we have to ask ourselves these ques-
tions as we look to the future in developing Earth
observation systems. And we have to ask them in the
order illustrated in the callout. The first two go togeth-
er: What are we going to measure? and Why are we
going to measure it? If there is no need to measure it,
there's no point in putting up a system. The answers
to those two questions are not simple. It takes a long
time to understand these things. But I think that now,
as a result of more than 20 years of civilian remote
sensing at any rate, we do have the ability to ask and
answer those questions.
Three Questions:
• What are we going to measure?
• Why are we going to measure it?
• How are we going to measure it?
• Instrument combination -*• Spacecraft configuration -*• Orbit (launch)
Once you've answered those two, then you ask
the question: How are we going to measure it? That
leads to an instrument combination, which in turn
leads to a spacecraft configuration to carry those
instruments and an orbit to make the measurements in
the correct way. And finally the launch system to get it
43
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
all up there. That's the order in which you should think
about these things. What have we been doing for the
past 20 years? More or less the reverse of that. We fling
something up into the sky and then say, "What are we
going to do with it?" So those are my thoughts on the
future of Earth observation. Thank you for listening.
Dr. Felsher: The title of my talk this afternoon is "The
Remote Sensing Industry," a title certain to elicit from
you an appropriate combination of smiles, sighs, or
smirks— and, angst, applause, or apathy — depend-
ing on your current or past professional lives. In fact,
some would insist that its 50-plus years, post-World
War II gestation period has not yet come to fruition,
and the remote sensing baby is not yet ready to birth,
and there is no remote sensing industry. They are
wrong, of course.
The remote sensing space segment, those
builders of launchers, constructors of spacecraft, and
fabricators of sensors, many of whom are represented
in this audience, can attest to that fact. Insofar as the
ground segment is concerned, by our count — and
here I'm referring to the Washington Remote Sensing
Letter that I publish — in calendar year 1995 there were
136 symposia, workshops, conferences, conventions,
and other open meetings held throughout the world,
dealing with remote sensing and GIS applications,
research, and technology.
Remote sensing space and ground segment
applications cover as broad a discipline
spectrum as can be imagined, literally. We deal,
in the space segment, with all aspects of engi-
neering and technology, from antennas,
to materials, to photovoltaics, to propulsion—
and everything in between.
Note that the annual meeting of ASPRS — the
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing — our professional society, will take place in
Baltimore in two weeks, and it will draw more than
4,000 registrants to the Baltimore Convention Center
filled with 140 remote sensing/GIS private sector ven-
dors. That, ladies and gentlemen, is indeed the raw
material for an industry.
And perhaps of somewhat more significance
to the audience before me, here sitting in the shadow
of Cheyenne Mountain, is the annual AFCEA Con-
vention — the Armed Forces Communications and
Electronics Association's Technet '96, to be held this
June at the Washington, D.C., Convention Center.
That meeting includes a complete mini-convention, or
track, as it's called, dealing exclusively with geospatial
information. One portion of that "track" is five com-
44
plete sessions devoted entirely to a private sector solu-
tions, as related to GIS and Department of Defense
activities. That, too, speaks eloquently to the reality
of a remote sensing industry, a burgeoning industry
whose existence can no longer be ignored.
In that connection, the incorporation of
private-sector input into DoD mapping and imaging
activities has recently been certified by a report of the
Defense Science Board "Task Force on Defense
Mapping for Future Operations," released by DoD
barely seven months ago. As a member of that DoD
task force, 1 shared with the other members the
vision, from the task force report, to "provide digital
distributed databases of geospatial temporal informa-
tion as the foundation for military information sys-
tems." And we recommended, as forcefully as we
could, that "DoD should shift from a paper map men-
tality to a digital distributed system," and significantly,
insofar as my comments this afternoon are con-
cerned, that DoD should, "exploit the commercial
marketplace for imagery, hardware, and software
tools, and services."
Beyond meetings, and thus further attesting to
the universality of remote sensing, note that some
264 individual short courses were offered last year,
around the globe, on topics directly related to satellite
remote sensing and GIS. The diversity of these meet-
ings and these courses is enormous. Remote sensing
space and ground segment applications cover as
broad a discipline spectrum as can be imagined, liter-
ally. We deal, in the space segment, with all aspects of
engineering and technology, from antennas, to mate-
rials, to photovoltaics, to propulsion — and everything
in between.
The space segment/ground segment linkage,
represented by Earth station designers and builders,
incorporates the whole range of computer sciences
and engineering, from control and communications
to image acquisition and data compression.
But it's in the ground segment that our indus-
try's diversity is so evident and prominent. In the
ground segment we deal with all discipline applica-
tions from agronomy to zoology. Pick up any general
science textbook, look at the table of contents, and
any subject therein listed has a remote sensing appli-
cations component, one that somebody, somewhere,
is today pursuing using overhead imagery. Mow, toss
in the diverse aspects of multidiscipline and inter-dis-
cipline applications of remote sensing, as environ-
mental monitoring, or land-use planning, or facilities
siting, or coastal zone management — now mix in the
more esoteric political and social sciences, such as
economics, demographics, and, dare I say, national
security — and we begin to understand and appreciate
the sense of incoherence that appears to emerge,
penetrate, and permeate though this industry we call
remote sensing.
EARTH SENSIMG, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
It is this sense of incoherence, stemming main-
ly from the very diverse nature of remote sensing appli-
cations, that has been the major contribution to the
very erroneous perception that a remote sensing
industry either does not exist, or, because of that very
broad sweep of applications, it is so large and diver-
gent as to make it impossible to put one's arms about
it, and thus it cannot be grasped.
But I'm ahead of myself. Getting back to the
ground segment, indeed, there are more than 400
companies, of all sizes, worldwide, that admit to being
value-added remote sensing/GIS firms, and it appears
that as a group they are willing to deal with every con-
ceivable application.
And parenthetically, lest the point be lost, allow
me to emphasize the fact that as we moved from the
79-meter spatial resolution of the Multispectral
Scanner of LandSats -1, -2, and -3; to the 30-meter
spatial resolution of the Thematic Mapper aboard
LandSats -4 and -5; to SPOT's 10-meter panchromat-
ic spatial resolution; to the 5-meter spatial resolution
of India's IRS-1C — each leap in spatial resolution has
been accompanied by a significant increase in sales of
image information products and services by the private
sector, with each step of refined resolution resulting in
increased image purchases by existing market compo-
nents. More importantly, whole new application mar-
kets, hitherto not active space imagery customers,
have been brought into the fold, as spatial resolutions
reached the threshold where the resulting image infor-
mation could capture events considered significant to
these new customers.
What new markets, then, can we expect to
emerge over these next several years as the new com-
mercial licensees as Earth Watch, Orbimage, and
Space Imaging fly their more capable birds, and we
have available 4-meter, or 2-meter, or 1 -meter
imagery? Yes, these are exciting times.
In addition, coupled with this increase of spa-
tial resolution will be an enhanced multispectral capa-
bility as well, promised by Resource21. And beyond
these electro/optic enhancements has been the
appearance and availability of radar imagery from
ESA's ERS-1, and Japan's JERS-1 and MOS-1. Also,
Canada's ambitious RADARSAT has successfully
flown, and we can now expect a flood of radar imagery
to add to our commercial archives.
And of course, concomitant, but hardly sec-
ondary, has been the rapid development of software
designed to digitally fuse, and otherwise seamlessly
merge images from disparate image sensors. Mow,
couple all this with the computer revolution that has
placed on our desktops an image interpretation and
analysis capability reserved but a decade ago for main-
frames, and we begin to truly appreciate the fact that,
yes, the remote sensing industry baby is not only full
term — it's here, it's hungry, and it's beginning to howl.
Which brings me to NARSIA. The North
American Remote Sensing Industries Association is
brand new. We're just starting out of the blocks. We
have a letterhead and we have business cards. And we
are drawing corporate members from across that
broad space and ground segment spectrum of indus-
tries noted earlier. NARSIA membership includes
spacecraft and sensor builders, such as Hughes
Aircraft Company. It includes such current data
providers as EOSAT and SPOT. It includes such future
data providers as Space Imaging, Inc. And it includes
value-added firms as diverse as Autometric, Inc., MRJ,
Inc., PlanGraphics, Inc., and SAIC.
I'm going to wind up this talk by telling you a
little of what activities NARSIA plans to undertake.
And if this sounds like an open and shameless solici-
tation for corporate membership, rest assured that it
is. My own introduction to remote sensing, though it
wasn't called that then, was as a graduate teaching
assistant in photo-geology at the University of
Massachusetts in 1959, where I was introduced to the
intricacies of the Kelsh Plotter. Technology has long
since passed the Kelsh Plotter by, and the technologi-
cal wonders that have, since those years been piled
one upon the other, have served to move a once
research- and national- security driven subject of eso-
teric exotica full-speed into the public and commercial
arena. Where yesterday there was no possibility of pri-
vatization or true commerce in remote sensing, today
there is no question but that the business of remote
sensing is here to stay.
Where yesterday there was no possibility
of privatization or true commerce in remote
sensing, today there is no question but that the
business of remote sensing is here to stay.
The big problem is that the very diversity of the
industry and its applications has served to isolate the
practitioners. Depending on your place in the space
segment/ground segment/end user continuum, this
has led to severe disconnects:
• As an example, we have no standards for
data acquisition, delivery, and analysis, and hence the
topsy-like resulting adoption of ad-hoc data formats.
• As an example, we have no clear definition
of the boundaries of our related businesses, hence no
feel for the lacunas, the interstices, and the overlap-
ping activities within those businesses.
• As an example, we have no industry-wide,
industry-driven mechanism for market research into
evolving user requirements; hence no clear industry-
wide understanding of current market trends or future
market expectations.
45
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
• As an example, we have no recognized, influ-
ential industry-wide spokesperson who could respond
to legislative branch laws and executive agency fiats;
hence we have no organized input into the laws and
programs most affecting our industry;
• As an example, we have no outreach activi-
ties aimed at informing the general public of the bene-
fits already derived through Earth remote sensing, and
those yet to be derived by a strong commercial remote
sensing industry; hence the historic lack of citizen sup-
port as a public constituency and advocate on behalf
of remote sensing;
• And finally, as an example, we have no indus-
try-wide formal interfaces with institutions of higher
learning; hence no means of instigating, affecting, and
assuring an ongoing source of properly trained entry-
level professionals who could take their places in our
profession.
The panchromatic data is the highest spatial
resolution remote sensing data commercially
available today, collected
on a regular basis.
The first step in alleviating these and other situ-
ations facing the remote sensing industry is to orga-
nize ourselves, en masse, as a group. And the larger
the group, the more certain its voice will be heard.
And if we define our group in the manner described
earlier, that is, encompassing the space segment and
the ground segment components of our industry, and
including appropriate input from the end-user commu-
nity, we will then have one significantly large group.
And that group will be NARSIA.
We recognize, of course, that so diverse an
organization as NARSIA will grow to be, it cannot count
on its membership responding in a uniform manner to
every situation. We do expect to encounter sufficient
differences of opinion within our membership. Indeed,
some tenets may be diametrically opposed. But as
there is strength in numbers, so is there strength in the
recognition of divergent views within a convergent con-
text. As long as aims, objectives, and goals remain con-
gruent, the tactics and strategies developed to achieve
those aims, objectives, and goals can differ, can be dis-
cussed, and can be reconciled.
Ultimately, NARSIA's business is the business
of doing business in remote sensing. We seek your
corporate membership. A past issue of Washington
Remote Sensing Letter containing NARSIA informa-
tion, and a NARSIA application form is available at
the literature table outside this room. Please take one
with you and convince your management to seek
corporate membership in NARSIA. We will be con-
vening our Second Annual NARSIA Congress this
summer, on July 25 and 26 in Washington D.C., so
please leave me your business card if you wish to be
placed on our mailing list to receive more informa-
tion. I look forward to welcoming you as new corpo-
rate members of the North American Remote
Sensing Industries Association. Thank you for your
kind attention.
Mr. Edwards: Good afternoon. EOSAT and Antrix
Corporation Limited, the commercial marketing arm
of the Indian Department of Space, have joined forces
to make present and future Indian satellite image data
available worldwide for at least the next decade.
EOSAT collects Indian Remote Sensing System (IRS)
data of North and Central America at its Norman,
Okla., ground station. EOSAT is also the exclusive dis-
tributor of IRS data outside of India's footprint.
IRS-1C, the most robust IRS satellite yet, was
launched on December 28, 1995. Three types of data
are available: panchromatic data with 5-meter pixels,
multispectral data with 25-meter pixels, and wide-field
multispectral data with 180-meter pixels. The panchro-
matic data is the highest spatial resolution remote
sensing data commercially available today, collected
on a regular basis.
In this presentation, we will look at the Indian
Remote Sensing system, learn how EOSAT is fulfilling
its commitment to be your one-stop resource for Earth
information needs, and illustrate our commitment to
provide the international market with additional satel-
lite image data and Earth information.
The EOSAT-Antrix partnership provides major
benefits for the remote-sensing community:
• with one phone call, users have access to a
comprehensive portfolio of data;
• customers will benefit from more frequent
coverage due to the availability of data from several
satellites;
• Indian and LandSat data are also compatible
for use together in image processing systems because
both data sets are in the standard fast formats. This
means that both are easily imported to image process-
ing systems;
• with IRS-lCs advanced capabilities, the
highest spatial resolution remote sensing data com-
mercially available today provides new mapping capa-
bilities demanded by all users;
• expansion of the number of ground stations
receiving Indian data promises users an expanded
base of global coverage now and in the future;
• similarities between data from the Indian
satellites and LandSat 5 ensure a continuing supply
of multispectral data into the next century.
46
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
India has a 17-year heritage of using remote
sensing satellites for management of natural
resources, and you heard Dr. Kasturirangan talking
this morning a little bit about the different examples —
he used some water examples. Mow that they've been
using remote sensing from their own satellites they've
gone from 43 percent success rates with ground
troop type work to 98 percent in terms of finding
clean ground water.
The IRS program provides the most reliable
and continual source of satellite remote sensing data
for today and tomorrow.
The IRS satellite system was designed and
developed by the Indian Space Research Organization,
the research and development arm of the Indian
Department of Space. The system is operated by
ISRO, and data reception, recording, and distribution
is handled by India's National Remote Sensing Agency
[Fig. ES-201J.
The IRS system includes a series of five oper-
ating satellites [see table below] and four follow-on
satellites to be launched in the next five years. IRS-A is
decommissioned right now, but it still could collect
data if there's a need in the marketplace for it.
IRS- ID, identical to IRS-1C, will be launched in 1997
or earlier if market demand requires it. Three more
P-series satellites are planned for launch from now
to 1999.
Operating IRS Satellites
IRS-P3
launched
March 21, 1996
IRS-1C
launched
Dec. 28, 1995
IRS-P2
launched
Oct. 1994
IRS- IB
launched
Aug. 1991
IRS-1A
launched
March 1988
(can collect data; now decommissioned)
Since the launch of IRS-1A in 1988, the IRS
series has continuously collected high quality data.
The data provide the synoptic view, repeat coverage,
and multispectral information valuable for mapping
and monitoring natural resources (water, vegetation,
soils, and geology) and in helping to resolve resource
management problems.
IRS-1C data are currently being received at the
Shadnagar station, which covers all of India, and all or
portions of surrounding countries (portions of Iran,
Oman, Cambodia, and Laos; all of Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, and Thailand), and
at EOSAT's Norman, Okla., ground station, we acquire
data of nearly all of North America, including southern
Canada, Mexico, and most of Central America [Fig.
ES-202]. The German station up in Australia is going
on-line this month; actually as I'm speaking now, the
Data Types Pixel Size Swath Launch Date
* IRS-P4, PS, & P6 Launch 1997 through 1999
Fig. ES-201
Fig. ES-202
installation is going on for the software. We have com-
plete coverage several times over of IRS- IB data for
the Norman footprint and are beginning to build the
IRS-1C archive.
Ground stations that will be operational to
receive 1C data in 1996 include Japan, Australia,
South Africa, Thailand, and Ecuador, as you see illus-
trated up here, to be receiving by the end of this year.
EOSAT is holding discussions with the other members
of the global ground station network and expects as
many as 10 will be on-line in 1997.
In addition, EOSAT's capability to deploy
portable ground stations worldwide to collect IRS data
(as well as LandSat and current radar satellites) will
quickly expand the global archive of available data.
The IRS- 1C satellite circles the Earth in a
near-polar, sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 817
kilometers, crossing the equator at 10:30 a.m. [Fig.
ES-203J It carries three types of imaging systems:
• PAN: high resolution panchromatic data with
23km and 70km swath
• LISS-3: high resolution multispectral with
142 km swath
47
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
IRS Constellation of Satellites and Sensors
Satellite
Altitude
Equator
crossing
Design life
Launch
Instrum.
Spectral
bands
Spatial
resolut.
Swath
Repeat
coverage
or revisit
IRS-1A
904km
9:40 am
3 years
3/17/88
launched
LISS-1
0.45-0.52
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
72.5m
148km
22 days
LISS-2
(A&B)
0.45-0.52
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
36.25m
74km
IRS-1B
904km
10:35am
3 years
8/29/91
launched
LISS-1
0.45-0.52
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
72.5m
148km
22 days
LISS-2
(A&B)
0.45-0.52
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
36.25m
74km
A + B=
IRS-P2
817km
10:30am
3 years
10/94
launched
LISS-2
(A&B)
0.45-0.52
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
32x37m
67km
131 km
A&B
24 days
IRS-1C
817km
10:30am
3 years
12/28/95
launched
LISS-3
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
1.55-1.70
23.5m
23.5m
23.5m
70.5m
142km
24 days
148km
WiFS
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
188m
774km
5 days
Pan
0.50-0.75
5m
70km
<5 days
IRS-P3
825km
10:30am
3 years
1996
MOS-A
0.75-0.76
in 4 bands
2.5 x
2.5km
248km
-
MOS-B
0.40-1.01
in 13 bands
720 x
580m
248km
MOS-C
0.60-2.30
in 2 bands
1 x .7 km
248km
WiFS
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
1.55-1.70
188m
774km
5 days
X-ray Astronomy payload
IRS-P4
3 years
1996
Ocean Sensor
LISS-3
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
1.55-1.70
23m
23m
23m
70m
142km
148km
24 days
IRS-P5
3 years
1997
MAPSat
IRS-P6
3 years
1998
Environm
IRS-D
825km
1 0:30am 3 years
1999
LISS-3
WiFS
Pan
0.52-0.59
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
1.55-1.70
0.62-0.68
0.77-0.86
0.55-0.75
23m
23m
23m
70m
188m
<10m
142km
148km
774km
70km
24 days
5 days
5 days
48
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
• WiFS: a low resolution multispectral with
broad-area 774km imaging swath.
The Panchromatic sensor has 5.8-meter reso-
lution (pixel-to-pixel spacing). The LISS-3 sensor has
green, red, and near-lR bands with 23.5-meter resolu-
tion and a SW1R band with 70.5 -meter resolution. The
WiFS sensor has a red and a near-IR band with
189-meter resolution. Panchromatic products have
5-meter pixels; LISS-3 products have 25-meter pixels;
WiFS products have 180-meter pixels.
The IRS-1C sensors provide a complete range
of datasets for numerous applications: high resolution
data with narrow-swath coverage combined with
low-resolution data with broad area imaging. This
design characteristic favors land use/land cover monitor-
ing in parts of the world where small, fragmented agri-
cultural fields are spread across expansive countryside,
requiring both an overview capability to assess regional
conditions, and a fine-resolution capability to monitor
health of individual crops and estimate crop yields.
With its first satellite launched more than eight
years ago, the IRS program has documented thou-
sands of data applications in experimental and opera-
tional projects. Urban planners and environmental
managers are expected to benefit immediately from
the panchromatic sensor. The high spatial resolution
of the panchromatic band will allow differentiation
between small features located close together, as often
is the case in urban areas. The five-day repeat cover-
age, made possible by a pointing capability, will allow
analysis of rapidly evolving environmental situations.
The panchromatic sensor collects data in a vis-
ible band. The products have 5-meter pixels with
image sizes of 70x70 km and 23x23 km. Stereo
images can be acquired with the off-nadir viewing
capability. The repeat coverage is 24 days, or five days
at the equator with the off-nadir capability (+/-26
off-track viewing).
Stereo imaging will interest those who use
stereo pairs to create digital terrain models for
three-dimensional analysis. Users will also be able to
create digital orthoimages directly from the image
sets. Orthophotographs, which are vertically and hori-
zontally corrected images, are the most popular map-
ping product produced from satellite images.
LISS-3 data provide multispectral data users
with yet another tool, very similar to LandSat TM [Fig.
ES-204]. The similarities in spectral range and spatial
resolution of data from LISS-3 and TM make it an
excellent complement to TM archive data, providing
data in nearly the same spectral bands with improved
resolution. LISS-3 provides the continuity for future
data acquisition.
The two data sets can be used together by
resampling and histogram matching techniques. Both
Orbital characteristics
Imaging Systems
Fig. ES-203
fRS-1C-USS3
WAVELENGTH
PIXELS
Itm
Green
0.52-0.59
25 m
Red
0.62-0.68
25 m
NIR
0.77-0.86
25 m
SWIR
1.55-1.70
70 m
Swath 142 km VNIR, 148 km SWIR- Repaat- 24 days
Fig. ES-204
procedures are available on basic image processing
systems. We expect new users of IRS-1C data will find
its spectral and spatial characteristics ideal for several
common applications, including discrimination and
mapping of water, vegetation, and land-use and
land-cover features.
Like its predecessor, LISS-2, the new sensor
has four spectral bands (comparable to TM bands 2-5).
The short-wave band will provide significant ability to
distinguish very subtle differences in plant species.
WiFS sensor data will satisfy a user group over-
looked in the recent flurry of high-resolution satellites
planned — regional land managers, foresters, state
planners, crop, and other monitoring services who
oversee large tracts of land and require broad spatial
coverage, and frequent temporal coverage, will be par-
ticularly interested in WiFS data. The WiFS sensor has
two bands designed for vegetation monitoring (these
bands are used to calculate vegetation indices) — a red
and near-infrared band — comparable to NOAA's
AVHRR data. The pixel size is 180 meters. WiFS col-
lects data of a 740-km wide swath, and has a 5-day
revisit capability, at the equator.
49
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. ES-205
Fig. ES-206
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign
Agricultural Service monitors crop conditions worldwide
to determine changes in production and to assist in
drought- and flood-related relief efforts [Fig. ES-205}.
The Foreign Agricultural Service used IRS- IB
LISS-1 data as their primary sensor in the U.S. during
the 1995 growing season to monitor crop conditions
[Fig. ES-206]. With its first satellite launched more
than eight years ago, the IRS program has document-
ed thousands of data applications in experimental and
operational projects. With EOSAT's Norman ground
station receiving data since April 1995, many agencies
and companies in the U.S. have also used IRS data.
The Environmental Protection Agency used IRS-1B to
identify and characterize environmental conditions in
areas of southwest Colorado (figure here) where natur-
al resources are often damaged by contamination
from abandoned or inactive mines, gravel mining and
road construction and other activities. The IRS data
were used to identify high-priority areas of waste cont-
amination for focused evaluation.
Panchromatic and multispectral data are avail-
able in a variety of image sizes with several choices of
50
Scene Sizes, Multispectral
Scene Sizes, Panchromatic
Custom options
Fig. ES-207
DATASET PIXELS SWATH REVISIT ARCHIVE
IRS Pan |
KVR 1000 |
TM
IRS LISS-1
IRS LISS-2
IRS LISS-3
JERS-1
IRS WiFS
5 m
70 km
5 days
1996+ |
2m
40 km
N/A
1984+ |
25 m
72 m
36 m
25 m
18 x 24 m
185 km
148 km
14 days
22 days
1984+ J
1991 + 1
145 km
'lijTkirT""
22 days
24 days
1991+ 1
"\ 1996+ |
75 km
44 days
1992+ |
180 m
774 km
5 days
1996+ I
JERS-1
ERS-1 & -2
' with off-nadir viewing
Fig. ES-208
map projection, ellipsoid, correction level (including
pixel size) and format for direct input to GIS systems
[Fig. ES-207]. Digital data is available on CCTs, 8mm
Exabyte cartridges, and CD-ROM. WiFS is available in
either individual scenes or as a continuous swath.
WiFS can also be purchased as a subscription service,
with the option for electronic data delivery.
EOSAT's full product line includes a multitude
of complementary datasets to provide clients with their
specific data requirements [Fig. ES-208]. When you
listen to what John MacDonald had to say earlier
today, it is so critical if we're going to bring together
this fragmented marketplace to one that becomes
organized from the standpoint of the information, or
like what Dr. Kasturirangan said this morning, pull the
application needs for the information and not because
of the technological push because we just feel like fly-
ing a sensor. We need to be able to have organizations
who work together very closely and offer datasets from
a variety of satellite systems. Here you see datasets we
offer from Japan, from ERS, and even when we don't
offer it ourselves, we're one phone call away from help-
ing you go to somebody like SPOT if its a SPOT data
you need to solve your problem, RADARSAT and a few
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
other people. And the reason is, we should all be
sophisticated enough in this business to not treat it
like a hardware competition but get more involved in
pulling together a continuity of services associated with
forming information from the datasets.
EOSAT's full product line orders may be
placed directly with our customer services or through
one of our global representatives. VISA and Mastercard
are accepted for convenient payment. We also have a
global distribution network of more than 125 compa-
nies to provide you with the full range of remote sens-
ing data, services and training. Please call EOSAT or
check our Internet home page for data samples and
more detailed product and service information:
http ://www. eosat. com .
Sample IRS-1C data is available on EOSAT's
home page at http://www.eosat.com [Fig. ES-209].
The home page includes information on the IRS-1C
satellite, products and prices, worldwide reference
path/row maps, and browse services for viewing the
sub-sampled images available (to determine the loca-
tion of clouds) and metadata.
IRS- ID, identical to IRS-1C, is currently slated
for launch in 1997 [Fig. ES-210]. The satellite will
carry tape recorders capable of storing data acquired
over areas out of range of a ground station. IRS-P4, P5
and P6 will be launched before 1999.
EOSAT's partner, Antrix and the Indian Space
Research Organization (ISRO) are committed to the
IRS program, helping to bring yet another source of
quality satellite data to users worldwide. EOSAT is
committed to:
• offering "one-stop shopping";
• providing users with more frequent coverage
due to the availability of data from several satellites
(for environmental or agricultural monitoring; as well
as better chances of getting cloud-free data);
• providing compatible formats so datasets
can be used together in image processing systems
(especially useful for merging data sets);
• providing products of IRS-1 C — higher reso-
lution data, increased spectral bands, and more fre-
quent coverage;
• expanding the ground network receiving and
distributing Indian data (we will provide you with world
coverage of data);
• ensuring a continuing supply of imagery into
the next century (so you won't have to worry about
where to get your data).
. . . which reaffirms EOSAT's commitment to opening
ever more windows on your world. Thank you. I appre-
ciate your time.
mmtSt
http://www.eosat.com
satellites
products & prices
path/row maps
browse services
metadata
publications
technical information
information updates
Fig. ES-209
welcome
to EOSAT online
■E-
■ra.
.Q J
Fig. ES-210
Vice Adm. Ramsey: Good afternoon. I am going to
address applications in all three areas: Earth sensing,
communication, and navigation. I suspected there
were going to be quite a few academics, scientists,
and engineers in the audience, so I have included lots
of pictures.
The focus of my comments is specifically on
small satellites. Small satellites have contributed to
demonstrate and provide applications that are compet-
itive in the marketplace and will eventually result in
lower cost to users. Now, what is small is in the eye
of the beholder. For the purpose of my presentation,
it includes satellites that are 150 pounds, like some
communications satellites, and 1,000 pounds, like the
STEP class satellite.
Small satellite capabilities have significantly
evolved over a relatively short period of time. We
launched our first small satellite in 1985, and at the
end of this year, early spring of perhaps next year,
we're talking of launching a small satellite in geosyn-
chronous orbit to provide direct broadcast service to a
unique country — Indonesia. We've also, in the same
period of time, demonstrated some of these applica-
tions that are going to take on ever-increasing impor-
51
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
cvr*
Ocean Buoy Profiles
Fig. ES-301
CJMF
Tropical Ocean
Global Atmosphere
(TOGA) Buoy
♦ Ocean Meteorological and
Oceanographic Measurements
♦ Data Relayed by ARGOS
♦ Position by ARGOS or GPS
♦ Deployable
by Ship or
Parachute
Fig. ES-302
CET&
Ocean Current Tracker
♦ Omnidirectional Sea Surface
Wave Characteristic Sensor
♦ Free Drifting or
Moored Configurations
♦ Hull Options for Sensor Flexibility
♦ Gamma Radiation Sensor Option
♦ ARGOS Datalink and Positioning
♦ GPS Optional
m
j
Fig. ES-303
tance as we evolve into the world of low-Earth- orbiting
satellites. We've demonstrated stack satellite launches.
We've demonstrated co-orbital multisatellite launch-
es — seven satellites in a common orbital plane of 82
degrees.
Now, Earth sensing really falls in two cate-
gories, as we view it at CTA, and one of them is sens-
52
CVTV
GEO Buoy
♦ Similar to Anti-submarine
Warfare (ASW) Sonobuoy
♦ Uses Geophone to Detect
Acoustic or Seismic Waves
Propagating Through
Ground or Ice
♦ Report Back by Aircraft or
Satellite Datalink
♦ Lithium or Alkaline Battery Packs
♦ Standard "A" Size Hull for Parachute Deployment
Fig. ES-304
ing the Earth from space, from satellites, and the other
is collecting data in space from sensors on the
ground. The Lockheed Martin, CTA, Inc., and NASA
team is currently building the Clarke satellite that will
launch in late summer of this year. And the key point
with respect to this symposium is that it will provide a
stereo, three-meter, in-track on-pass and also off-track
viewing. It will also sense clouds and map cloud cover
throughout the world. It's a 620-pound satellite, and
it's very low power, about 235 watts. It has a gimble
device, which permits stereo in-track and also a sec-
ond gimble device so you can view off-track, plus or
minus 30 degrees. Commercial teammates will exploit
this data for their particular areas of market interests —
Bechtel, CH2M Hill, and Suel Corp. Remote sensor
applications are conceptually unlimited.
What of those applications that we are current-
ly involved in? There is a growing need, it seems, for
long-range remote collection of data. CTA has devel-
oped a family of remote sensors. I will address in my
following comments the TOGA, the TAD, the GEO
buoys, and the BWIS (Battlefield Weather Information
System). Currently, we have a family of 1 1 buoys; obvi-
ously the fat ones on the left hand side of the view
graph are erected or placed by hand (Fig. ES-301).
The ones on the right, the thin-sized, fit sonobuoy
tubes that can be dropped from the air.
The TOGA buoy is one that's extensively used,
and it measures meteorological and oceanographic
parameters (Fig. ES-302). Last year was a very active
season for hurricanes, as we all know, and we used a
lot of these buoys.
The ocean current tracker is a very inexpensive,
frequently used tracker (Fig. ES-303). GPS is common
in all of today's models. So as they drift around the
world in the various currents, major currents, you can
get a direct readout of the location very accurately.
GEO buoys are designed to penetrate any type
of soil, and they penetrate so that the sensor body,
about six inches of it, extends above the soil (Fig. ES-
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
304). We dropped it from atop a six-story building, and
it went right into the asphalt without any problem at
all. It detects acoustic and seismic waves. We've taken
that capability and provided a variation on the theme.
In one application, we've provided a different sensor
package on the GEO buoy so that it can be used for
local weather data collection. You could drop it behind
the lines by CJAV or by a SEAL team, Rangers, heli-
copter, or whatever, and it gives you local weather
information that would be of an extreme value to land
forces and possibly air forces in the area. Another vari-
ation on the GEO buoy is a tactical surveillance sys-
tem. This takes advantage of acoustic and seismic
sensor packages through which you can detect possi-
ble intrusion or movement and by discreet spectral
analysis even provide a degree of discrimination as to
what type of vehicle — tank, personnel carrier, etc. is
present.
The TIROS Arctic Drifter is somewhat unique
(Fig. ES-305). It has a gimbled sensor package inside
this globe. The impact bag on the bottom absorbs the
energy as you drop it from an aircraft, then it just rolls.
This gimble seeks its equilibrium, and it ends up being
always vertical so that the antenna can pop up, and
you can transmit.
The next one, the Argos Data Communicator,
has great potential. It's programmed for messages. It
has GPS readout, and we put it on a merchant marine
ship [Fig. ES-306J. Here it shows the plot of that ship,
an hourly plot — hands-off operation. Just put it on the
superstructure, forget about it. It comes on every hour;
the Argos package on TIROS-N picks it up and reads
it. Obviously, TIROS is not there every hour, so this
can store seven to eight hours worth of data and mes-
sages if you want it to, pump it out, and then when the
package picks it you can make a specific plot. Lloyd's
of London would love to have something like this to
track all merchant marine ships around the world.
Mow let's look at the prototype communicator
(Fig. ES-307). Some of you may have seen the article
in National Geographic; Will Steger used this on his
trek across the Arctic. It has GPS readout, and he also
files his dispatches. So the article that appeared in the
National Geographic came via this communicator.
Two of these communicators are currently being used
down in the Antarctic by the chap who is trying to
cross the Antarctic by himself.
In the communication applications, I want to
touch briefly on two systems. A max - sats were stack-
launched, and we launched those in 1990 propitiously
because they were up there when Desert Storm came
about. And the Marines used this extensively in support
of the 2nd Marine Air Wing. They used it for logistics,
administration, personnel — that kind of traffic that
wasn't operational. In fact, it was so effective that the
intelligence community found out about it and took it
Q£f¥
TIROS Arctic Drifter (TAD)
♦ Ice Flow Tracking
(Position by
ARGOS or GPS)
♦ ARGOS Datalink I X^^E^^^HI
♦ Temperature kW_ ir*^^^^^^^^H
and Barometric p^ ^Vfl^^^^^^^H
Pressure
JES 1 ^^^^^fafl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
♦ Deployable
by Parachute
Fig. ES-305
cvrx
ADC GPS Tracking
US East Coast 1995
Fig. ES-306
cur*
"Prototype"
Communicator
Arctic Expedition Proven (1994-1996)
January 1996 National Geographic, "Dispatches from the Arctic" b\ \S Ml Steger page 78.
Fig. ES-307
over, and the Marines had to find a backup system to
get the information back. The co-orbital multiple satel-
lite launch was in 1991, it was Micro-sat's. Seven of
them were launched; unfortunately, the launch vehicle
did not put them in the right orbit, so instead of living
for three years, they lived for six months. But they did
demonstrate the communications in an orbital plane,
53
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
aw
.CF SYS IT MS
"CLASSIC"
Compliments TSIDS
SfYicsARGOS
Fig. ES-308
from one footprint of the satellite, continuous footprint
all the way around in that co-orbital plane. It's an
application that we see being used by the ORB-
COMMS, the Teledesic, etc.
With respect to navigation applications, I'll talk
about Racal, which was the forerunner of our utilization
of GPS in the control loop for attitude control of satel-
lites (Fig. ES-308). Racal was launched three years
ago. It's up there performing very well. Racal was used
to evaluate and test GPS attitude determination capa-
bility. Subsequently, we have refined it, and Rex 2,
which was launched last month, actually has GPS in
the control loop for the satellite. The Clark satellite will
also have GPS as a attitude control. I think what's
most interesting about this symposium is that at next
year's conference we're going to see the proof of the
pudding. Mow a lot of the things that we're talking
about today, in anticipation of, we're going to have
actual commercial remote sensing experience. Earth
Watch will be launched in late summer. Clark and
Lewis will be both launched in late summer. LEO com-
munications and ORBCOMM and others will be up
there and operating. We'll have trackers on users that
are moving, like semitrailers, tanks, etc., that are going
to be able to give battlefield awareness capabilities,
and navigation applications are going to be broadly
used in a wide variety of satellite systems and controls.
As Dick Vitale would say, "Wait until next year, baby."
Thank you.
Mr. Thompson: Hi. I'm Dave Thompson, the president
of Spectrum Astro. I'm from Phoenix, Arizona. Our
company is also a developer of high performance
small satellites. We historically have primarily been
involved in satellites developed for ballistic missile
research, ballistic missile defense research for deep
space planetary exploration, and for technology
demonstration and validation. The thing that I'm going
to talk about today is specific application for space-
based user-to-satellite communications.
As our company has been looking for diversifi-
cation opportunities, one of the things that I became
very interested in was this market for spacecraft-to-
user voice operations. And I have been very fortunate
having spent most of my time here in the United
States, to have made four around-the-world trips in the
past six months, visiting 15 or 20 countries three or
four times. So 1 have sort of had a massive dose of for-
eign exposure here for the past six months, and I find
that it has been very interesting, because I know a lot
of us who are based here in the U.S. and are involved
in the U.S. space industry, haven't had the opportunity
or don't have the need to go overseas and see some of
these opportunities. What I'm here to tell you is there
are tremendous opportunities for overseas export of
our technologies, not only space-based but ground
based as well. 1 want to talk a little bit about that today.
In my very interesting trips, I found in almost
every developing country I visited, on five different con-
tinents, a booming economy. I can't tell you how sur-
prised I was to find that every road was clogged with
vehicle traffic, every hotel was jammed to the rafters,
every airline seat was packed a month in advance. If
you have the impression that some of these Second
and Third World countries don't have an appetite for
your type of technology, you need to shake up your
international marketing department and have them go
over and talk to these people, because it's a very broad
market over there. And the interesting thing is that a
lot of these markets are just opening for the first time
to U.S. exports, because a lot of these people have
had closed markets for investment. So I think there is
a tremendous opportunity for our U.S. -based compa-
nies to do this.
At the same time, space is only one element
of the solution, and 1 happened to be in India three or
four times and met with some of the senior telecom-
munications officials in India. One of the most interest-
ing statistics that I heard while I was there is that there
are 565,000 villages in India with no telephone service.
First of all, I couldn't believe there were 565,000 vil-
lages in India, but I suppose when you have a land
mass that large and a number of small villages you
can come up with those kinds of statistics. The other
thing that was interesting to me was that one of our
foreign partners is a prominent attorney in India. He
was telling me a story that it took him seven years to
get his first telephone line, took him four years to get
the second line, and he applied for the third line two
years ago and it took two years. So this fellow has
three lines. Now I think most of us who have had the
experience of building a home here in the United
States recently — typically you're putting four to six tele-
phone lines in that house, and if it takes the telephone
company more than a week to get the phone lines in,
you're on the phone screaming at them saying,
"Where's my phone lines?" So it gives you some idea
54
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
of the disparity in telephone service. The other statistic
I ran across was that half of the world's population is
not connected and it has never made a telephone call.
So if you can imagine how often we use a telephone,
imagine what the market must be, once these people
get telephones in their hands.
Now I have compiled some statistics which I
am going to show you today. These come from a num-
ber of sources. They come from Spectrum Astro's in-
house research. They come from a company called
Pyramid Research, which is a funded research compa-
ny located in the Boston area. It comes from Federal
Communications Commission and Securities Exchange
Commission filings that are on public record, and it
comes from a public report by the MITRE Corporation.
It is just a top statistic in the developing world,
excluding the Americas and Western Europe, by the
year 2000 we expect a shortage of 350 million tele-
phone lines worldwide [Fig. ES-401]. This is a tradition-
al, voice telephone line, basic telephone service, 350
million telephone line shortage. Now let's take a look at
main-line penetration in some of these areas [Fig. ES-
402]. A main line is one circuit from the central office
to the subscriber, meaning it could go to a house
where there would be one subscriber family or it could
go to a business where there would be several hundred
users. In the world in 1988, we had 463 million tele-
phone numbers you could dial. I didn't know this. This
is pretty interesting stuff. You'd have to have a pretty
big phone book to call all these guys, but by the year
1993, I think we had 612 million or 613 million. So it
gives you an idea of the number of lines out there and
the number of lines that are being installed by our
World Telecommunications Administration in the 140-
some countries which Pyramid Research monitors.
You can also see the disparity between the
developing countries and the industrialized countries.
We have an average of 51 phone lines in the industrial-
ized seven nations and an average of four phone lines
per 100 in the developing countries. And some of
these countries have very low telephone penetration
rates, as you would expect. I just picked a few exam-
ples which are shown there. Some of them are less
than one telephone line per 100 people [Fig. ES-403].
Here it is shown graphically and you can see the
graphic display of the industrialized seven nations
again, which are all above 40 lines per 100 in direct
telephone line penetration, main-line penetration, and
then tapering back very rapidly as we move into places
like Africa and Southeast Asia. And I have some more
detailed statistics which I am going to show you [Fig.
ES-404]. Basically, this is tabular data. On the left-
hand side of the vertical line you can see the telephone
penetration as of 1993, and on the right-hand side
projected for the year 2000. And this happens to be
the chart for northern and sub-Saharan Africa. You can
see in the third column over there the numbers. The
SPECTRUM"
ASTRO =
Developing World:
PSTN Demand/Supply, Year End 20O0
t-«tin Africa/Middle Easlem
Amanca Eaal Europe /NtS
Fig. ES-401
SPECTRUM*
ASTKO =
Main Line Penetration
Main Line" - 1 Circuit from Central Office to Subscriber
World Tola I Main Lines (000)
Developing Countries (OOO)
Developed Countries (000?
1990
511.220
331,519
1993
613.609
206 fb4
40- 7 .05e>
Average 51 Phone Lines per 100 People - Industrialized Countries
Average 4 Phone Lines per 100 People - Devet oping Countries
1993 Main Line Penetration Per 100 Population (Examples)
Brazil 2 68 India . 88
Sri Lanka 1 03 Indonesia 0.90
Fig. ES-402
SPECTRUM —
ASTRO =
Main Line Penetration 1993
(Per 100 Population)
Monti Amenta
-lap..
Centr* ft Eatern Europe
Soul* Pacific
N.S
Caribbean
■ 1
South *n«.,c.
f
Mp.»<i/On!r*l iiwnra
1 f
MmMIc fmt
rturth Atnta
i
EattAua
S.E As. j
^LiD Sanjrw Atnra
p
r
■=t
u_ ,- . .. _;
--#
-r~
'~~f
_■ _:__S
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fig. ES-403
United States' number here is more than 60 lines per
100 people. I don't think there's anybody up there
that's much above 10, except for maybe South Africa.
And some of these countries are down as low as one
and fractions, such as Ethiopia and Cameroon.
And here is another chart [Fig. ES-405]. It is
the same type of data. Again, current data is in 1993
55
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
SPECTRUM'
ASTRO =
Main Line Penetration
for Select Countries : 1993 and 2000
HMnUnn PaputMMn **•»■
(DM) IWW
Siib SiUijrJfi *rnc»
Fig. ES-404
SPECTRUM'
ASTRO =
Main Line Penetration
for Select Countries : 1993 and 2000
boutfiant AM*
MM HalnUnM
Mrtn Lm*» PoputMWn *•»» H
[000] IPOOJ
fig. ES-405
and future data in the year 2000, showing Asia-Pacific
and Southeast Asia. Indonesia, the fourth most popu-
lous country in the world, has more than 190 million
people. I know most of us have probably never been
there. I have been there two or three times in the last
six months. There are more than 7,000 islands in the
Indonesian archipelago. About 5,000 of those islands
have no telephone service. So this is a perfect applica-
tion for a space-based telecommunications system,
because you can imagine the ground infrastructure
cost associated with trying to wire a place like that.
Now let's take a look at the mobile voice com-
munications market [Fig. ES-406J. These are your tra-
ditional cellular-to -cellular towers of worldwide cellular
subscribers. And you can see, in 1993 we had 31 mil-
lion people with traditional cellphones, and by 1999
we're estimating 123 million will be using these. Now
bear in mind a lot of these people may already have
another type of phone — but the biggest growth ele-
ment that we're seeing here is coming in the develop-
ing world. Why is that? Because it's easier to go into a
village or town and put in a central tower and hook up
a few thousand users, or a few towers and a couple of
thousand users, rather than having to wire the whole
56
SPECTRUM-
ASTRO =
Mobile Voice Communications Market
Worldwide Odutor Subscribers (Sources: Motorola. Pyramid Research) :
1M3 - 31 Million
IBM - 47 Million
1990 (Eal)- 123 Million
USA Cellular :
19M - 1 Million
1984 - 19 3 Million
Western Europe Cetiular :
1993-9 Million
1996 12 Million
2000 (EX) ■ 20 Million
Developing World :
1B93-S 5 Million
2000 (Eel) - 33 Million
Estimated Developing World Mobile Satellite System (MSS) Market : (Source : Pyramid)
2000
Low Estimate (Mil) : 2.05
High Estimate (Mil) : 4.06
S.21
20 06
2S1D
1t.1l
Fig. ES-406
town. We're seeing this happen across big areas of
Europe and are now starting to move into Asia and
Africa. Pyramid Research looked at these numbers and
said, "OK, if these are the numbers for worldwide tra-
ditional cellular subscribers, (let me describe what that
subscriber is; that subscriber is spending about $50 a
month on his telephone, about $600 a year) what
would be the base for a world space-based mobile
satellite system, if we had such a thing?" [Fig. ES-407]
And bear in mind there is no such thing that does that
today. There are several systems, which I am going to
briefly touch on here in a minute, which will do that.
You can see that there is a low estimate to a high esti-
mate, with somewhere between 2 and 4 million sub-
scribers in the year 2000, and somewhere between 16
million and 34 million subscribers by the year 2010.
Now keep in mind this is thinking of a 50-cents-a-
minute, $600-a-year subscriber. Imagine lowering the
cost to a few cents per minute to a few dollars per
month. Then you have a vastly expanded market.
I want to make one clarifying comment when
we talk about user-to-satellite space communications
systems. A lot of our communications systems today
use satellites, but of course we go through our local
phone company to the switching office. We go up over
a big dish, to something like IntelSat. The message
comes down to another big dish, and goes to our local
phone company [Fig. ES-408]. This next generation of
systems will allow the handset to talk directly to the
satellite. Basically you'll be carrying around a little
satellite Earth station in your pocket and you'll be talk-
ing directly to the satellite. Now this also has different
versions — it will go in automobiles and mobile vehi-
cles, it will go in telephone booths, which will be a so-
called fixed-site. OK, that comes back then to the
ground station and into the public switched telephone
network, or the PSTN here. Then it can go to your
home or back out to a cellular tower to your traditional
cellular user. What we're looking at here is a growth
from zero subscribers today — none of these systems is
operational — to somewhere between 16 million and 34
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
ASTRO =
MSS Subscriber Growth
Scenario A and Scenario B
IMRtl«ianWMlUM7IMIM 2B10
\ratM in *t_
MJ 1M 1 n 3.M «.M
■ ?l »M 1 1 M 13 M 1«I3]
35
30
25
20-j"
ISf
10
5
■ Scenario A
■ Scenario B
■ ■ i ll
I I I 4 1 ■
■ ■ 1 1 I I I
1 1 1 I I I I I I
Fig. ES-407
million subscribers in about 15 years. And the revenue,
I don't have the revenue chart here, but something like
$11 billion a year to $22 billion a year in revenue is
going to be generated from systems like this.
Mow there are five systems — actually there are
more than five — that have been proposed and are cur-
rently before the FCC and International
Telecommunications Union [Fig. ES-409]. These hap-
pen to be the so-called "Big LEOS" or satellites that
are in low-Earth orbit. They are called Big LEOS
because their frequency is above 1 gigahertz. The little
LEOS are below 1 gigahertz. There are five Big LEOS
that have been proposed and are currently standing
before the FCC. Three have been licensed, but basical-
ly they come in all kinds of varieties, anywhere from 16
to 66 satellites. The FCC has set very strict standards
on the technical operation of these systems. One thing
I wanted to call to your attention is the third column
over. How many users are these systems going to
address? You can see — and I want to caution about the
use of these numbers because these numbers are very
difficult to extract and they're dependent upon many
factors in the analysis of the system — but if you don't
lock onto the specific number, what you can see is
these systems are going to handle a few hundred thou-
sand users and maybe a million users simultaneously —
a million simultaneous circuits. What I drew from this, if
there are 30 million people currently on waiting lists
around the world for telephones and there are 350 mil-
lion lines short in the year 2000, my analysis says that
every one of these systems is going to sell out as soon
as it's launched, because these systems are going to
be in demand. There are several geosynchronous sys-
tems that have also been proposed. Each one of those
geosynchronous satellites is projected to handle
between 12,000 and 16,000 users. These satellites do
not provide millions of simultaneous circuits. A lot of
people in this industry have made fun of the Teledesic
people. I have nothing to do with Teledesic, but I can tell
you from this research that Teledesic is going to be a
SPECTRUM -
ASTRO =
User - To - Satellite
Space Communication Systems
Fig. ES-408
SPECTRUM \
ASTROS
SPACE-BASED CELLULAR SYSTEMS
"BIG LEO" COMPARISON
System Name
ELLIPSO
# of Operating
Satellites
16
Orbit Planes/
Atotudef
3 Planes
(2) 520 x 7646 km
(1) 8066 X 6066 km
Sttmjttaneous
Users
142.000
Source: Analysis
GLOBALSTAR
48
1400 km
115,000
Source: MITRESQIobalstar
IRIDIUM
66
760 km
172,000
Source: MITRE/Motorola
ODYSSEY
12
3 Planes
10.000 km
27,600
Source: MITRBTRW
CCI
46
2,000 km
47,000
Source: FCC Filing
Fig. ES-409
big hit. Because it's going to provide about 2 million
simultaneous circuits and it is going to service maybe
30 million users with that. Mow you go back to that
number — 350 million line shortage — the whole situation
is cost driven. So I think Teledesic and those guys like
all these guys are going to be very successful.
In conclusion, the analysis says that there is a
tremendous need worldwide for basic communication
services, not only space-based but ground-based as
well. We're not talking about the enhanced services
that are currently in use in the United States. We're
talking about basic voice. When we add the enhanced
services, we're going to see a greatly increased
demand above that. And many types of affordable
technology are available to address this. Several of the
system solutions which I have talked about here today
have been proposed and there are some others which
I haven't had time to address. I think the predicted
demand is going to absorb the entire supply. Also, I
think the opening of these markets and the reduced
interference by the exporting country — with free mar-
kets and the ability to export the technologies we have
here in the CInited States — it is going to be a tremen-
dous opportunity for our companies here in the states
57
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
and for the user countries that we have represented
here today. That concludes my remarks. Thank you.
Q&A
Mr. Gibson: Ladies and gentlemen, we've had about
25 questions passed up, and we're very grateful for
you having sent them. What we've done is to divide
them between the members of the panel, and I'm
going to go along the row this way asking them to
answer one question or to combine them, if it works
out that way, and then we'll work until the 25 minutes
are expired. For those of you who get your questions
answered in the 25 minutes, I hope you'll be apprecia-
tive, and for those who don't, I hope you'll be forgiving.
Can we make a start then? To give Bill Ramsey time to
come up, let us take two that are on launchers. Two
people have asked whether the presentations that
we've had mean that we should be going for small
launch systems for small satellites, but I don't really
think it's something that we can talk about in this par-
ticular session, unless anybody's got another feeling. I
think we're all sitting on the edge of our chairs on this
one, so we're going to safer ground and ask John
MacDonald.
Dr. MacDonald: Thanks, Roy. All of the questions that
Roy handed me have to do with pricing, in one way or
another. I'll read you one or two of them, and then try
to answer them in a sort of collective fashion. The first
one says, "You mention the relationship between price
and value and you used the example, the oil company
client. How do you adjust the price to the required
value for different potential markets as the only feasible
way of flat price per scene?" That was one question.
The other question that's kind of related is, "What cri-
terion would you use to balance the need for free pub-
lic access to remote sensing data and the need for
providers to charge for access to that data?"
Another one says, "Does the scientific user get
hardware and software for cost of manufacturing?" No
they don't. Why would they get data for cost of manu-
facturing? I think one person here talked about criteria.
I wouldn't get into criteria at all, but I'd get into mech-
anisms. Create a market. A market is a mechanism
which determines price value balances. Now in the
remote sensing business, we are used to thinking
about scenes as the unit of data. The real unit of data
is the pixel. It's quite feasible today to sell data by the
pixel. And 1 would suggest that one way around this
problem of pricing and so on is to sell data by the
pixel. And you can start giving quantity discounts for
pixels, which means sub-scenes, scenes, and super
scenes, all that sort of thing. The whole point about all
58
of this is, let's not think about criterion, let's not think
about government setting rules or something, but
rather let's try to do the things that allow the creation
of a market mechanism for this type of stuff. I just
want to make one point about the person who asked
about the scientific user getting the hardware and soft-
ware, the cost of manufacturing. This is a point of view
I tried to put across in various committees both here in
the United States and Canada for years, and got
nowhere because most of the committees were domi-
nated by the scientific community. I finally gave up and
came up with the idea that I put forward in my presen-
tation. I do recall, though, that when I was a professor
many, many years ago and could classify myself, I
guess, as a scientist, I did get books for free. I did get
hardware and software at what was termed an educa-
tional discount, and if you look at the price lists of RSI
or EOSAT, or SPOT Image, you will find certain types
of data available at quite low prices that are quite suit-
able for the scientific community. I can't speak for
EOSAT, Dave certainly can, but I can for RSI since I'm
involved with them, that's RADARSAT International by
the way. RADARSAT International does give data away
to scientists who are doing bonafide research for very
low prices and sometimes for free, because it's in their
commercial interest to do so.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you. Murray Felsher?
Dr. Felsher: One question reads, "Given the vast
amount of remote sensing data that is and will be
available, is there any national or international effort to
categorize that data?" I'm assuming that the question
meant not only categorize but catalogue data as well.
To my knowledge there is no international effort to cat-
egorize or catalogue the vast amount of data that's
available, especially as it applies to remote sensing
inter-commercialization. However, I happen to have
with me here a pertinent Statement of Work. About
four or five months ago, this consultant went over to
NASA and said very much what this question asked,
except he said, "How come there's no attempt to cate-
gorize or catalogue the data, or is there an attempt?
Do you people at NASA know what you've got, that
the commercial remote sensing industry could use?"
And they went around and I'm sure there may be one
or two NASA folk here, and they came back and told
me, "No. We don't know what we have." So I wrote a
proposal and beginning May 1, 1996, there will be a
study undertaken on the "compilation of existing soft-
ware and data sets related to remote sensing applica-
tions currently residing within and outside of NASA
and the presentation of a plan designed to distribute
this inventory to interested parties within and outside
of NASA." We're going to work very hard to make a
first crack at getting this kind of information. It's
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
incredible to some that with all the data that is avail-
able in the research community, in NOAA and in
NASA, that no one has ever tried to put this together
and show how we could use these data in the com-
mercial arena. Hopefully we're starting along that road
right now. Unless I'm mistaken, no attempt has been
made to do this before.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much, Murray. Dave
Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: I've got two questions here having to do
with receiving imagery, either real time or at least
through a subscription service through the Internet. I'll
address those two first. In essence, asking: When will
that sort of service be available? That sort of service
we're developing now to be available this summer. I'm
unaware of other data sources, at least from a satellite
imagery point of view, because of the bandwidth that's
needed and how large those files are for scenes being
available at this point in time. And for us we're starting
with the WiFS data since with the low resolution, the
file sizes are manageable so we actually use the inter-
net connection. And pretty much with a PC that's at
least a 386. Anything above that will help you. The
reality is they'll all be in standard formats of GIF, TIFF,
BMP types of formats, so you can plug and play with
them as long as you've got that general image pro-
cessing type software, you can be able to get that
delivered. When would I expect LANDSAT, SPOT, IRS
full scene data available? That's part of this question. I
still think we're a couple years away from that. We
don't have the bandwidth. The technology is out there,
here and there, but from the standpoint of us com-
mercially getting it ail consolidated and integrated at a
cheap enough price so it could be worth the subscrip-
tion and delivery, it's going to be a little longer way off.
That's where I think we are with electronic delivery.
Mr. Gibson: Bill?
Vice Adm. Ramsey: The question is, "What is the
power level and channel capacity of Endo-Star, and
what is the cost of the user receivers?" Endo-Star
direct broadcast satellite at geo-synchronous orbit is
1,800 watts on orbit. There are eight transmitters, five
of which are active at any one time. Generally each
transmitter puts out 24 megabits per second data rate,
and the power level is around 50 dBW The cost of the
user equipment will come down to about $300 per
unit. DirecTV is somewhat of a model that you could
refer to now. DirecTV started, as I think most of you
know, about $700 and already you can get it at
WalMart and Sam's for $495.
Mr. Gibson: You better take another one, Bill. That
was too easy.
Vice Adm. Ramsey: Will GPS attitude controls replace
or simply augment current attitude determination sen-
sors? It is a goal at CTA, Inc. to develop enough confi-
dence and engineering reliability that you can eventu-
ally replace attitude control systems with the GPS atti-
tude control system. There's significant cost savings
involved that you can do that. However, having said
that, I think it's doubtful that critical satellites that need
redundancy will ever give up the more conventional
attitude control systems.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much. Dave?
It's incredible to some that with all the data that
is available in the research community, in NOAA
and in NASA, that no one has ever tried to put
this together and show how we could use these
data in the commercial arena.
Mr. Thompson: I have four questions also. First one —
the question says, "The survey data show that the
largest growth of phone lines will be in undeveloped
countries. Phones or lines will cost approximately $10 -
$50 per month. This is the total income of most per-
sons in undeveloped countries. Do you believe a per-
son wants a phone instead of food for his family?"
Now generally when I'm hungry I will eat before I use
the phone, but I don't know about these guys.
Obviously, I think this reflects a misunderstanding of
what some of these markets are. First of all, take India,
for example. India has almost 1 billion people, some-
thing like 900 million people, and in fact 700 million
of those people may not be able to afford a phone ser-
vice like this. But there are 200 million people in that
country alone, who you would call the so-called middle
class of India, who could afford this service. I think you
will find that across a lot of these developing nations
that they have a very rapidly developing, maybe we
would consider it a lower middle class, but a middle
class that can afford some of these types of services.
The other thing you should keep in mind is that in the
case of villages where the income level is low, one
might install a phone booth. A number of these
providers have talked about satellite phone booths,
which might service 500 or 1,000 users. So you could
amortize the cost of installing the phone booth over
many more users and therefore lower the cost of use
of the booth. Then it gets down of course to the cost
of calls per minute, and you get into things like differ-
ential nighttime pricing, weekends, holidays, that kind
of thing. There certainly will be some people who will
59
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
not be a candidate for this type of service, but I think
the market is large enough and statistics will bear this
out, they'll be supported by the emerging middle class
there and these phone booth type operations.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much, Dave. We've been
asked, "How are the security interests of governmental
agencies being addressed with this push to output as
much information to the civilian sector as possible?" 1
don't think that, certainly in Europe, this has been a
problem. Once the people in the civil agencies and the
defense agencies agree that they're going to work
together, there's enough imagination between them to
draw the frontier in a way which doesn't impinge on
security. I'm particularly impressed with what the
French have done, whereby even some of the control
of the actual development program has been done by
the civilian space agency. I really don't think that this is
a show stopper. I don't know if anybody would care to
comment. I'm not saying that security isn't important,
on the contrary, I'm saying it's so important that it will
be looked after, but much more difficult as a show
stopper is internal resistance.
There are, as we all know, at least three
organizations here in the United States that plan
to launch various types of Earth observation
satellites and appear on a commercial basis
and charge for the data and thereby hopefully
support the cost of the whole thing.
Dr. Felsher: No matter what happens, this country has
historically been far advanced technologically in Earth
sensing for national security purposes, and that will
never change, and that can never change. The release
recently of Corona and Aurora early imagery happened
with a lot of people saying, "It's got to happen," and a
lot of other people saying, "It shouldn't happen, but
we'll go no further than this." My own feeling is that we
live in a more dangerous world than we did when there
was an "evil empire." We must always maintain a tech-
nological edge in remote sensing for national security.
That's got to stay the way it is. I know a lot of people
may disagree with that. Maybe some on the panel
here, but I'll be happy to discuss it.
Mr. Gibson: John, you're back on.
Dr. MacDonald: I've got one here that says, "What
criterion do you suggest for determination of when
remote sensing data should cease to be publicly sup-
ported and available and be privatized, for example,
weather information?" You've got to look at this as a
60
sort of multi-step process. First of all, it's beginning to
happen already. There are, as we all know, at least
three organizations here in the United States that plan
to launch various types of Earth observation satellites
and appear on a commercial basis and charge for the
data and thereby hopefully support the cost of the
whole thing. Something else is also happening, if I
could have the first overhead. It was one of the ones I
showed you before. If you look at the system from the
spacecraft on through to distribution, if you look at
what EOSAT does, and it's exactly the same now as
what SPOT Image does, exactly the same as what RSI
does. From the spacecraft down to the archive is basi-
cally government supported. From there on is a private
enterprise function. If you create the market at the left
end here, and it gets back to this mechanism of creat-
ing market, as you begin to egress people's real needs
for information, as the volume increases, you can
afford to move the private sector backwards through
the chain. The mechanisms are already happening in
all of remote sensing all over the world, either through
private initiatives that companies are taking, or the
kind of mechanism I'm showing here. As EOSAT, RSI
and SPOT Image have all shown, you can operate that
part of the system as quite a viable, profitable business
today. It works just fine, and has been so for about five
or six years. There's a role that government can play in
this. There's another aspect to all this. If you could put
up the second overhead, which is the one I didn't show
you, it's two ways of government involvement in the
business. The top one shows the space agency doing
most of the funding. This is all government activity
now in remote sensing. The space agency doing most
of the funding of both the ground segment and the
space segment. The user agencies like the C1SGS, and
so on and so forth, not really supporting the system,
getting the information, the data, paying a nominal
price for it, and the guy with the red face up there is
the taxpayer. The taxpayer of course in government is
the ultimate source of all money. If you look at the bot-
tom, it's the same diagram, except now the user agen-
cies are funding the system. The space agency pro-
vides a little bit of funding for technical support, and
so on. If you think about it for a moment, that's the
way DoD operates. It's also the way NOAA operates.
But none of the other user agencies does. The weather
system, for whatever reason, has always been a so-
called public good or a public service. The defense
system, of course, has to be. When you get into those
bottom three boxes, the space segment, the ground
segment and the user agency, particularly with the
ground segment, in the NOAA case and of course in
the DoD case, NOAA is also the performer in both of
those boxes on the right hand side. But there's no rea-
son that they have to be. Those services could be pur-
chased by NOAA if they so chose to do, and I would
suggest that as things evolve, we try to go to the bot-
tom mechanism for government use and gradually
EARTH SENSING, COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION APPLICATIONS
move toward private sector performance of certainly
the Earth segment box, and that's in effect what's hap-
pening now in most cases, and ultimately in the space
segment box. It's a mechanism, not a criterion.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you. Murray?
Dr. Felsher: How will NARSIA "balance" CEOS? I think
that's a very perceptive question. What it pre-supposes
is that there is a balance required. CEOS, you remem-
ber, being the Committee on Earth Observation
Satellites that's essentially an international body of rep-
resentatives from the space-faring agencies. The key
word here is government agencies, and indeed there
is no, zero, zip representation from the private sector
whatsoever. Dr. Silvestrini, who talked this morning,
said that there has been some impact. That's not the
word, Arturo, but it's close to it. A door has been
opened. But my feeling is that there is some balance
required. There is a necessity for providing true private
sector input other than the lip service that we've been
getting from CEOS in the past, and this may be a bit
harsh, as to their considerations about what satellites
will be built by the governments of the world.
Historically of course, there was no reason to have the
private sector there since in the past all of the Earth
remote sensing satellites have been government satel-
lites, and as a matter of fact, as we speak, it's still the
same. Our expectation in the next several years is that
it will change, and there has to be some means for
providing input into CEOS' considerations and into
their programs and priorities, and we look for NARSIA
to be doing just that.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you, Murray. David?
Mr. Edwards: Last question I have here has to do with
the price ranges for different scenes and how long
does it take to get product to user? Typically the time it
takes for somebody to get a scene is within the week
they order it, unless there are special circumstances or
something that requires some support service. But typ-
ically that's starting to become the industry standard in
terms of actual measured performance. Sometimes it's
a lot quicker than that. When there's an emergency,
typically a disaster, a lot of suppliers, including our-
selves, have been known to put out a lot of products
within the same day the orders come in. There's a lot
of excess capacity from the standpoint of production
in the industry. Nobody runs more than two shifts for a
five-day work week in the industry, so there's at least
excess capacity for one more shift, and I'm well aware
of that. At EOSAT sometimes we don't even run two
shifts. Throughput's not a problem. I'll just give you
one price since I was talking about 1RS-1C. If you want
to see a IRS-1C scene of Tucson, pick up your free
coffee mug out in the hallway there for that data. For
our 23 x 23(km) scene, $900, and for 70 x 70(km)
you're looking at $2,500. Additional pricing you can
get at our booth. Please visit our booth. We have a lot
of imagery on display. That's about where it is.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you. Bill?
Vice Adm. Ramsey: The question is, "Which, if any,
remote sensing systems can provide data in the GPS
coordinant system or WGS-84 and at what level of
accuracy can it be obtained?" EarthWatch, when they
come on-line, will be providing data that is within the
GPS coordinate system, and I believe everybody even-
tually will, with the processing advances being made. I
think that all of the remote sensors up there will even-
tually use GPS coordinates and the accuracy level will
probably, again because of the processing advances,
be within the criteria of the GPS error probability bands
of 15 meter (spherical).
Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much. David, last
question.
There is a necessity for providing true private
sector input other than the lip service that we've
been getting from CEOS in the past, and this
may be a bit harsh, as to their considerations
about what satellites will be built by the
governments of the world.
Mr. Thompson: I have a question here that says, "Will
wireless local loop (fixed cellular service) represent a
tough competitive threat to space-based PCS or
space-based personal communications systems in
terms of pricing?" First of all, I want to tell you I'm not
an expert on wireless local loop. I know enough about
it to be dangerous. But I do know that we have to be
very careful in the definitions of what we're talking
about here, because you hear a lot of these terms that
get thrown around, and for example, wireless local
loop is not necessarily fixed cellular. There are wireless
local loops that operate at other frequencies than our
GSM, or other existing cellular services that are out
there. I think, and I only know of one space-based PCS
system, if you're familiar with PCS, PCS is the new
trend toward smaller and smaller cells in the fixed
based cellular service which will allow more capacity
for users, mostly in cities. Let me say that I think there
will be a tremendous demand for wireless local loops
in these developing countries, unrelated to space,
because the biggest expense of installing phone sys-
61
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
terns is the local loop. That's running the cable down
the street and into each house. There are some com-
panies that had these wireless local loops that basically
give you a little radio telephone that sits in your house
and goes to the central office to help cut the cost of
that wiring, and 1 think there'll be a tremendous market
for that. That doesn't necessarily have to compete with
the space-based cellular systems or other types of ser-
vices, because that's basic local service. It turns out
that these can actually work in very good concert with
the space-based systems by having a wireless local
loop, I described this phone booth earlier, which is sort
of the central node in the village. You can have a wire-
less local loop that's connected to the phone booth
and then allowed shared access to that uplink that
would allow a village to have international access
through that space-based service. 1 think the bottom
line is, it's a very bizarre marketplace right now. There
are a lot of new services coming on-line, and you must
be very careful in making analyses of these markets
because the markets are rapidly changing, and the ser-
vices that are being offered are combining a wide
number of different sources from the existing terrestrial
suppliers, from the space-based guys like we've talked
about here, and from other services like VHF and CIHF
services in the region and Irridium and things like that.
There are a lot of new services coming on-line,
and you must be very careful in making analyses
of these markets because the markets are
rapidly changing.
My suggestion to the members of the audience would
be make sure you do a very careful financial analysis
before you get involved in these things because there
are a lot of potholes that you can step into. My analy-
sis of some of the things that have been done in this
particular area is that they haven't necessarily been
done with a lot of forethought. People jumped in here
and said, "Here's my service," not knowing that right
around the corner is coming a whole new brand of
services from existing providers and things of that
nature. So there's going to be a lot of market turmoil
and we're only seeing the first generation of these sys-
tems, so it probably won't settle out until we see the
second generation, about the year 2005 or 2010,
which is when Teledesic and guys like that are coming
along. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Mr. Gibson: Thank you. A final word of wisdom from
Dave Edwards.
Mr. Edwards: I wanted to do a bit of followup on some
of the questions that came to John. He had to field
them all for the most part in terms of both pricing and
market. I think it's real critical to emphasize his point
about the mechanism being the market — in creating
the market. We have to get away from the paradigms
and emotions of worrying about prices, prices-per-
scenes and the paradigms associated with if govern-
ment contributes towards a satellite system, if our data
should be free. In the absence of that, there'll be con-
tinued fragmentation. If there's a continued fragmenta-
tion, you don't create the market. The market is the
only mechanism which you can be sure is going to
generate consistent funding no matter what the transi-
tion time is, and how we come about getting those
funds back towards paying for the data, that is again
application driven and not a techno-push. That is so
absolutely critical. If you look at the sleeping giant in
terms of remote sensing being the Indians, they basi-
cally said there was a lot of wisdom in the worldwide
remote sensing community, western technology, west-
ern utilization, but they keep fighting about the politics
of it and the pricing of it. The Indians just started to do
it. If you look at their history now, they continue to just
advance the satellites and a continual sweep of sen-
sors that there's a consensus by people needed for uti-
lization of managing Earth resources, and they're just
doing it, and they're just building it. In the meantime,
we can continue to fight in the West, and we don't
have any contribution at all except the one-sy, two-sy
programs that may be good for the life of that one
satellite. But you don't create a market and you don't
bring this together.
Mr. Gibson: This is all the time that we've got for our
questions. We apologize very sincerely for those that
we've not been able to tackle, but out of respect for
the next session, we really must draw it to a close.
With thanks to all those who've been on the panel.
And thanks too for the technical help that we've had.
Please don't go away because the next session starts
straight away. There will not be another coffee break,
you've already had it. Thank you very much.
62
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
Faster, Better, Cheaper
Master Steven R Scott
Moderator: Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space System Division
Session The Honorable Hans Mark, Ph.D.
Chair: Chair Professor
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics
The University of Texas at Austin
Former Deputy Administrator, NASA,
and Secretary of the Air Force
Speakers: Peter WHhelm
Director
Naval Center for Space Technology,
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Dr. Edward Stone
Director
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Mr. Scott: Our final session for today is on applying
the faster, better, cheaper methodology to space sys-
tems. Leading the discussion is the Honorable Hans
Mark, professor of aerospace engineering and engi-
neering mechanics at the University of Texas at Austin.
Prior to that he was both the undersecretary and sec-
retary of the Air Force, as well as deputy administrator
of NASA. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Dr.
Hans Mark.
Dr. Mark: Exploratory missions to the giants of the sol
ar system, Jupiter and Saturn, were the subject of inte
nse study by the scientists and executives of our plane-
tary exploration program in the mid-1960s. It was rec-
ognized very quickly that the outer planets would have
to be explored by spacecraft rather different from
those used in the case of Venus and Mars. First, the
spacecraft would have to travel much farther than
those used for the inner planets. The nearest outer
planet, Jupiter, at its closest approach to the Earth, is
more than 400 million miles away, in contrast to Mars
which comes to within 50 million miles. A trip to
Jupiter is therefore much longer than anything
attempted in the case of the inner planets, and the
spacecraft would have to be designed to last longer.
A second important point is that in going to the outer
planets it is necessary to move away from the sun.
All of the spacecraft used to explore the inner planets
obtained their electrical power from the sun. Solar
panels were attached to the spacecraft or solar cells
were actually mounted on the spacecraft body in order
to produce electrical power. This could not be done
with spacecraft designed to go to the outer planets.
These would have to rely on nuclear thermal electric
generators in order to provide the necessary electric
power. These power supplies use the energy liberated
during the radioactive decay of Plutonium-238. They
have proven to be very effective and reliable and have
been built to deliver up to 400 watts of electrical
power. Finally, the long distances require a much more
capable communication system than those used by
the spacecraft discussed so far. Thus, all the space-
craft that were ultimately designed to go to the outer
planets are dominated in appearance by the presence
of a large dish-shaped high gain antenna.
One of the early ideas that emerged from the
planning sessions of the 1960s was to use the gravita-
tional fields of the planets, which were the targets of
flybys, to alter the trajectory of the spacecraft so that it
could reach the next planet. This principle was applied
in the case of the voyage of Mariner 10 to Venus and
Mercury, where the gravitational field of Venus was
used to divert the spacecraft to Mercury. A much more
ambitious mission was conceived for the outer planets.
It was found that during the 1970s the large outer
planets would be in a favorable position for a voyage
that would use gravity assist methods in such a way
that all of the large outer planets could be visited.
Initially, this mission was called the Grand Tour, and
had the voyage been started in the early 1970s, the
"Grand Tour" could have included Pluto, which is the
outermost known planet of our Solar System. (Pluto is
not a large planet, being smaller than the Earth. It is
probably a rocky planet whose origin is unknown.) As
things turned out, this was not to be, but the idea was
important and almost every mission to the outer plan-
ets has used gravity assist methods to achieve its
objectives.
The considerations of a Grand Tour with a very
sophisticated spacecraft to measure all the properties
of interest resulted in the conceptual design of some
very expensive spacecraft, and people were concerned
whether the spacecraft would survive the trip. There
were very real hazards that had to be overcome in
journeys to the outer planets. One was the asteroid
belt which lies between Mars and Jupiter. This is a
region of space containing hundreds of thousands of
small rocky fragments orbiting the sun, ranging in size
from a few miles in diameter to objects of microscopic
dimensions. The asteroid belt probably resulted from
the breakup of a planet that originally occupied this
space in the solar system. Collisions with the debris
63
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
could destroy a spacecraft on the way to Jupiter and it
was important to determine whether this would hap-
pen with an inexpensive spacecraft, rather than a com-
plex and sophisticated one that would be used for the
Grand Tour.
Another hazard was the very strong magnetic
field that we knew surrounds the planet Jupiter. It was
very likely that energetic charged particles were
trapped in this field just as they are in Earth's magnetic
field. Therefore, when the spacecraft approaches
Jupiter, it would be subjected to very high levels of
radiation that might very well damage it. Since there
was no way of knowing the intensity of the radiation
fields around Jupiter, this had to be placed in the cate-
gory of an unknown hazard. Once again, a precursor
mission with an inexpensive spacecraft would be
important.
In order to deal with these problems, it was
decided to send a relatively inexpensive precursor
spacecraft to Jupiter in order to provide the necessary
design data for the spacecraft that would eventually
execute the Grand Tour. These spacecraft became
Pioneers 10 and 11. The precursor mission to Jupiter
was given the go-ahead by NASA Headquarters in
February 1969. Eventually, this would develop into the
Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn project. The NASA-Ames
Research Center was selected to manage the Pioneer
Jupiter-Saturn Program. The center had already man-
aged the development of the very successful plasma
probes, Pioneers 6 through 9, which were orbiting the
sun and collecting important measurements on the
structure of the solar wind. At the time, I was serving
as the director of the NASA Ames Research Center
and I have to confess that I, along with everyone else
at Ames, was elated when we were given the firm go-
ahead to plan for two new Pioneer missions, which
would be the precursors to the Grand Tour. We were
given a very stringent budget limit for the performance
of this mission. Specifically, the entire program con-
sisting of the two spacecraft with all the systems on
board should come in for a run-out development cost
of less than $100 million, in 1970 dollars. (Compare
this to the $1 billion program cost for the Viking
Project, which was carried on at about the same time.)
The TRW organization was selected to develop and
construct the Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn spacecraft. The
Ames Research Center had developed a strong rela-
tionship with TRW through their work on earlier
Pioneer spacecraft, and so this was a logical step. I
was heavily involved in the planning for the Pioneer
program, and, later on, in the execution. When faced
with cost constraints of the kind I have mentioned, we
had to adopt a strategy which would permit us to con-
trol costs and at the same time do something useful
scientifically.
In order to make certain that we could meet
these very stringent requirements, we adopted some
64
very clear management principles that we would
adhere to under any and all circumstances:
• There would be simple and clearly defined
mission objectives.
• There would be a small management team
at NASA-Ames, not more than 20 people.
• Broad delegation of authority would be given
to the prime contractor.
• Project managers would be carefully chosen:
Charles F. Hall managed the program at Ames and
Bernard J. O'Brien would do the same job at TRW
Both were first class people.
• Existing technology would be used wherever
possible in the spacecraft development process.
Engineering constraints would be imposed on the
spacecraft design that would prevent escalation
of requirements.
The last point turned out to every much the
most important. Normally in a spacecraft program of
this kind, the scientific requirements dominate, and
therefore the costs escalate if the requirements are
such that they can command support from the politi-
cal authorities. In the case of Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn
(which later became Pioneer 10 and 11), we could not
let the cost escalate beyond $100 million without risk-
ing program cancellation. What we decided to do,
therefore, was to place two arbitrary constraints on the
spacecraft that would guarantee low costs. One of
these constraints was that we would not provide a
three-axis stabilized spacecraft platform, stabilizing a
spacecraft with the appropriate control rockets to a
high degree of accuracy is expensive. We therefore
elected to use spin stabilization, which is achieved by
rotating the spacecraft around an axis with a large
moment of inertia. In the case of the Pioneer
Jupiter-Saturn spacecraft, the spin axis was in the
plane of the ecliptic, which permitted pointing the
communication antenna always toward the Earth. The
large moment of inertia which leads to a stable spin-
ning system was provided by the heavy nuclear ther-
mal electric power supplies mounted on long beams
about 15 feet away from the axis of the spacecraft.
This method of controlling the motion of the space-
craft is inexpensive, but there is a price to be paid: It is
impossible to obtain really good high resolution pho-
tographs of the target planet.
The second engineering constraint that we
placed on the spacecraft was that we would not store
any data on board the spacecraft. All data obtained
would be transmitted back to Earth on a bitstream not
to exceed 1,024 bits per second in real time. We rec-
ognized that high capacity data storage equipment
and high data rate transmission systems would be
extremely expensive. Once again there was a price to
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
ULTRAVIOLET PHOTOMtlfcfl
IMAGING PHOIOPOLARIMETFR
/
CFIGER TUBE TElFSCOPE
ASTEFKHD - MFTFOHOIU
DETECTOR SENSOR
\
V*~
V
> V
- * \
\ ^r-"»
'LASMA ANALY7ER
ftFRAflED RADIOMETEH
Fig. FB-101
be paid for
placing this
constraint on
the space-
craft. Low
data rates
meant again
that high res-
olution pic-
tures could
not be ob-
tained. Also it
would not be
possible to
secure high
resolution
data of the plasma stream and other phenomena to
be investigated. The scientists who were to build the
experimental packages mounted on the Pioneer space-
craft were given these constraints and were asked to
live within them. While this situation was obviously not
ideal from their point of view, most of them agreed
that the constraints made sense. They reasoned that
in a scientific investigation of this kind it was as impor-
tant to be first on the scene than it was to get the very
best data.
A line drawing of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft
showing the location of the experiment packages is
shown here [Fig. FB-101]. Its sister ship Pioneer 1 1
was essentially identical to Pioneer 10. This figure
shows the Pioneer spacecraft as built by TRW Systems
Group [Fig. FB-102]. Because of the engineering con-
straints that were placed on the design of the space-
craft before the scientific experiments were developed,
we were able to control the cost of the program. And
we did indeed successfully complete the development
and construction phases for a runout cost of less than
$100 million. Pioneer 10 and 1 1 were small spacecraft
weighing about 550 pounds. The communications
system uses approximately 100 watts of electrical
power. The rest of the systems on the spacecraft were
simple and rugged in design (see reference 1). Existing
technology was used wherever possible. Advanced
technology components and systems would be em-
ployed only when absolutely necessary. The fact is
advanced technology is both expensive and risky.
Therefore, we felt it would be prudent to introduce
advanced technology in an incremental manner. The
principle of carefully calculated risk governed us in the
design of the Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn spacecraft.
The project management lessons to be drawn
from this experience are that controlling escalating
requirements — be they scientific in a program of this
kind or military in projects related to the national secu-
rity through some externally imposed engineering con-
straint — is absolutely essential for cost control.
The mission planning for the two spacecraft
Fig. FB-102
called for two very bold maneuvers. Pioneer 10 would
fly by the planet Jupiter in such a way that it would be
accelerated. In that process, Pioneer 10 would pick up
enough energy to become the first man-made object
to leave the solar system. Pioneer 1 1, on the other
hand, would fly by Jupiter with a trajectory so that five
years later it would be able to fly past the planet Saturn
and become the first spacecraft to explore that beauti-
ful planet with its rings and large satellite Titan (see
reference 2). It is amusing for me to remember that
our arch-rivals at the time at the Jet Propulsion lab
vigorously opposed this mission plan. While they rec-
ognized the necessity of a precursor mission to their
much more expensive Grand Tour, that they would exe-
cute, they did not want the precursors to become the
first spacecraft to leave the solar system or the first
one to fly past Saturn. I remember that there was
some very heavy politicking at NASA headquarters
before we were able to gain approval for this mission
plan. (The engineering model of Pioneer 10 is now
exhibited in the "Hall of Firsts" at the Smithsonian
National Air and Space Museum in Washington —
because the real article was, indeed, the first man-
made object to leave the solar system. It shares the
room with the Wright brothers' plane, the Spirit of
St. Louis, and John Glenn's Mercury capsule).
The "Grand Tour," as envisaged in the 1960s,
was eventually carried out, but in a more limit manner
with the Voyager I and II spacecraft. These were
sophisticated stable platforms weighing almost 2000
pounds. The Voyager project was managed by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory and was highly successful. A
wealth of very important scientific information was
65
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
'■"WMKT (OlffVlllXi
POSi
RELATIVE TO
PUlSAfiS
Fig. FB-103
""" °' '"' """
collected.
Voyager 11
flew past
the four
large
outer
planets —
Jupiter,
Saturn,
Clranus
and Nep-
tune —
and
returned
excellent pictures
from all of them.
(The Voyager pro-
gram development
cost was about $600
million in then-year
dollars.)
There is another
amusing incident
which I need to
recount relating to
Pioneer 10. 1 have
already mentioned
the fact that Pioneer
10 would become the
first man-made
object to leave the
solar system, About
three months before
the scheduled launch
of Pioneer 10 on March 3, 1972, I received a tele-
phone call form my old friend, Carl Sagan, whom I
first met when he was a post doctoral fellow at the
University of California in Berkeley in 1960 or 1961
(Carl was not yet as famous as he is today because the
Cosmos television series was still some years in the
future). Carl asked me whether I realized that Pioneer
10 would be the first man-made object to leave the
solar system. I said, "of course," and then added some
words to the effect of "so what?" Carl, with a trace of
exasperation in his voice, replied that this was a most
important event and that we should put a message on
the spacecraft in case someone finds it. By 1972 we
had begun to speculate in the problem of how one
might look for extraterrestrial life, and Carl— his imagi-
nation always being somewhat ahead of the rest of
us — asked me to consider what would happen if
somebody out there found our spacecraft. He pointed
out that it would be good if we could put a message
on Pioneer 10 which would at least provide the finder
some information on where the spacecraft came from
and who built it. 1 had to agree that Carl had a point,
and so the idea of placing an appropriate plaque on
Fig. FB-104
Fig. FB-105
the Pioneer 10 spacecraft was born. The plaque itself
was designed by Carl's wife, Linda, and my job was to
take that design and to get some of them manufac-
tured so that we could put one of them on the space-
craft. 1 remember going to a small engraving shop in
Mountain View, Calif., to have Linda's design etched
on some brass plates, (one of which would finally have
the distinction of flying on Pioneer 10.) The plaque is
shown here and the instructions for deciphering it are
in the caption [Fig. FB-103J. (Some of my friends con-
tinued to insist that absolutely no one, no matter how
smart, could decipher what Linda and Carl Sagan put
on that plaque. The Los Angeles Times had a some-
what different viewpoint. Shortly after the plaque design
became public, the editorial cartoonist pointed out that
the finders would wonder whether all people on Earth
walked around without any clothes [Fig. FB-W4]\)
Pioneer 10 was successfully launched on
March 3, 1972, just over three years after the project
was approved. It flew by Jupiter on Dec. 4, 1973, and
is now on its way out of the solar system. Pioneer 1 1
was successfully launched on April 6, 1973, and it
reached Jupiter on Dec. 3, 1974. Pioneer 11 then
went on to achieve the first close encounter with the
planet Saturn on Sept. 1, 1979. It was the first space-
craft to send back to Earth pictures of the planet
Saturn and of its absolutely spectacular rings taken
from a point close to the planet (see reference 3). The
Pioneers returned a number of important scientific
results about Jupiter, Saturn, and about the nature
of the interplanetary medium. They also achieved the
objective of being the precursor missions to more
sophisticated and expensive spacecraft. It was discov-
ered by Pioneer 10 that the asteroid belt does not pre-
sent a real danger. In fact, there was no noticeable
increase in the number of meteorite hits on the space-
craft as it passed through the asteroid belt. Pioneer 10
66
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
was also the
first spacecraft
to measure the
magnetic field
and the radia-
tion intensity
around the
planet Jupiter.
Once again, it
was discovered
that, with an
appropriately
designed trajec-
tory, a space-
craft could
Fig. FB-106 safely approach
the planet (see
reference 4). Pioneer 10 obtained the first good pic-
tures of Jupiter. A sample is shown here [Fig. FB-105J.
The spacecraft also made the first survey of the mag-
netic field of Jupiter and the trapped charged particle
distributions. A schematic diagram is shown here [Fig.
FB-106]. Pioneer 1 1 was the first spacecraft to take
close up pictures of Saturn and its ring system. A sam-
ple is shown here [Fig. FB-107J.
Pioneer 10 is now on its way out of the solar
system. In 1990, the spacecraft passed beyond the
orbit of Pluto. At the present time, Pioneer 10 is more
than four billion miles away from the Earth. What is
most remarkable about this little 550-pound spacecraft
is that we are still receiving signals from it. The power
now available to transmit these signals is a little bit less
than 50 watts, or what you might get from a weak
electric light bulb, and yet the signals can still be
heard. It is really a remarkable technical achievement.
Pioneer 10 will hopefully still be within earshot when it
actually passes the boundary of the solar system. This
boundary has been defined as the point where the
solar wind no longer exerts any pressure. It is expected
that a plasma discontinuity will be observed at that
point. This will be the last piece of scientific informa-
tion we receive from Pioneer 10. Hopefully, we will
receive it soon, since it is now 23 years after the
spacecraft was launched. Once the spacecraft passes
that plasma discontinuity, it will be the first man-made
object to truly arrive in interplanetary space.
The example of the Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn
program is encouraging. The program was executed
according to the principles that we evolved 25 years
ago to assure "better, cheaper, faster" space vehicle
developments. One question that is most important is
to consider whether it is possible to apply the same
principles now. The fact is that we were able to enforce
our constraints only because the Pioneer program was
indeed a precursor to something much more elabo-
rate. The scientists working with us were therefore will-
ing to accept the management discipline that we
Fig. FB-107
imposed. It is not at all clear that we could have
imposed our constraints and our discipline had we not
been able to look forward to the Voyager program. It is
important to make this point here to hedge the con-
clusion that the prescription I have outlined here for
doing things "better, cheaper, faster" will work today.
Speaker's note: References for the preceeding pre-
sentation by Dr. Mark.
1. Charles F. Hall, Hans Mark and John H. Wolfe,
"The Journey to Jupiter." Endeavor, Vol. 35, No.
124, pp 9-14, January 1976.
2. "Pioneer: First to Jupiter, Saturn, and Beyond,"
Richard O. Fimmel, James A. Van Allen and Eric
Burgess, (NASA SP-446, 1980, Washington, D.C.).
3. "Pioneer Saturn," Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol., 85, No. All, November 1, 1980.
4. 'Jupiter: Studies of the Interior, Atmosphere,
Magnetosphere and Satellites," Thomas Gehrels,
Editor, The University of Arizona Press, (Tucson) 1976.
Dr. Mark: I'd like to now introduce our speakers. I
want to apologize just a little bit, we have decided to
reverse the order, because as they appear on the pro-
gram it wasn't quite as logical. I'm going to ask Pete
Wilhelm to be our first speaker. Peter G. Wilhelm is the
director of the center for Naval Space Technology at
the CIS. Naval Research Laboratory, which is one
of the nation's really distinguished technology develop-
ment institutions. It is unique in the sense that it is the
only institution within the Department of Defense that
can actually build and develop space satellites, and
when I was sitting in the Pentagon some 15 years ago
I made use of that capability liberally as you will
remember and that is still there. Mr. Wilhelm has been
recognized by a number of awards. He holds the
67
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Extensive Experience Developing, Launching and Operating DoD Satellites
V
Over 82 Satellites & 33 Launches
To Date
NH1_ I. A Leader in Space
1 at Launch In 196g
SiltcttdRrtlt:
- 1st Communlcallona To/From Space
{Protect MOONBOUNCE)
1st Lanj* Scat* Photoa From Space
-1st
On ft
■ 1 at Space Object Tracking Syalem
- tsl Multiple Satellite Launch From
Single Rocket
- let Demonatratton Of Global Positioning
System (OPS)
- 1 st Actively Stabilized Large Transfer
Stage
Fig. FB-201
Faster. Cheaper. Better
■ "Shortened" Development Cycles tor Reduced Costs
• "Optimization" At System Level vs Component Level
• "Assured" Integration and Interoperability
- Teaming of Government and Industry
• "Responsive" to Sponsor's Needs
Fig. FB-202
Distinguished Civil Civilian Service Medal of the U.S.
Navy, he's a fellow of the Institute for Aeronautics &
Astronautics. Mr. Wilhelm is a graduate of Purdue
University. And it is a great pleasure to introduce Pete
Wilhelm, whose last and most important achievement
really recently was the flight of the Clementine space-
craft, which is our current example of what this panel
is about. So Pete, please, the podium is yours.
Mr. Wilhelm: I was asked to write an abstract and in
that abstract I said 1 would describe the history of the
space program at NRL. As you can tell by this view-
graph it is a very, very long history [Fig. FB-201].
Fortunately for you I don't have the time to give you
the unabridged version. So what I will do is select
three particular spacecraft because I think they make
the points that I will try to make in my brief talk. One
of those satellites will be the navigational technology
one. The second will be a satellite called LACE and,
finally, Clementine.
Proven Capability to Meet
Aggressive DoD Schedules
Task Requirements
• On-OrtrtTMt
of Advincad
DoD
Technology
Fig. FB-203
Now, "faster, better, cheaper" has become a recent slo-
gan, but the point I would like to make is that it's
something that we have practiced at NRL for the past
35 years [Fig. FB-202]. It is inherent to our culture, if
you will. As Dr. Mark mentioned on the Pioneer, we fol-
low some of the same general ground rules. We try to
establish a small project team, empower those people,
use people with a wide variety of experience levels,
from very senior people to junior level engineers and
then challenge those people with aggressive peer
review processes and support them with a robust test
program. We have found that is the formula for suc-
cess. Without a robust test program you don't catch
the problems. The other thing is that if you can work
faster, it is almost always going to be cheaper, but it is
only with the skill level and experience of your best
people that you can actually make it better. That is a
very important point, I think.
Lest you think that the satellites, the three
satellites I've talked about, are the only things we've
ever done rapidly, this chart gives you a couple of
more [Fig. FB-203]. We've done some small high tem-
perature superconducting space experiments in 14
months. These four things on the bottom were all tac-
tical terminals and tactical communication links that
were done in a very short period. The one that holds
our current record is one we call LIPS, which was done
in six months.
The other thing that's important in trying to
work rapidly is to have access to all of the necessary
facilities, test facilities, both space and ground [Fig.
FB-204]. We have those at NRL. In fact the ones for
space testing are all under one roof. And you see pic-
tures of the major facilities there on the left. Recently
those facilities at the NRL main campus have been
linked together with our ground station, using fiber
optic ATM links. That gives us the capability, for our
people at the ground station who are going to have
68
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
In-Place DoD Assets Support
Space and Ground Systems
9k
Fig. FB-204
to control the satellite when it goes into orbit, and
can now actually interact with the spacecraft prior
to launch, and we have found that to be a very effec-
tive tool. And, on the right, this shows a number
of our ground stations, both fixed and mobile ground
stations.
I talked a little bit now about the past, but
before I go any further I think we have to stop and look
at what the future holds [Fig. FB-205J. You don't want
to drive too far down the road while only looking in
your rear view mirror. I think we see a pretty different
situation, at least within the Department of Defense.
As probably has been said a number of times, the
Cold War is over. We no longer have a single enemy to
worry about. In fact, in just the last couple of days we
heard the North Koreans are starting to cause trouble
on the demilitarized zone. Secretary Perry announced
that we've caught Moammar Ghadafi with poison gas
facilities being built in Libya. We've got peacekeeping
missions in Bosnia. So it's really a very different world
than it has been in the more recent past. Cost has
more than ever become a major factor in what DoD
will be able to do. 1 think the one thing that we can
pretty well count on, though, is that DoD is going
to have to be even faster on its feet, even more agile
than it has been in the past.
Mow, I would like to get to those three particu-
lar satellite programs that I talked about. The first one
is our navigation program [Fig. FB-206J. You'll see a
number of satellites listed there: Timation I, 11 and III.
In effect, those satellites were what we today call
advanced technology demonstrators. They proved out
and developed the three fundamental capabilities upon
which GPS is founded: the stable clocks, the improved
accuracy that you get from "passive one way ranging,"
and then the use of high altitude and high inclination
orbits to give you global coverage. Those are the three
fundamental things that GPS relies on. After those pro-
grams had been completed, we are now up to 1977,
Vision for 21st Century Space System! 1 ^: ^Efo
mology Must Respond
^Tatlons
B War Is Over
f> Single "Defined" Adversary
New Missions (Drug Interdiction, f
7~ Peacekeeping)
Cost Is Ma|or Factor In New Spad
Systems Development
Commercial ■Off-the-Shelf'SJj
Has Significant Mllltarj,
Future Space Systet
Cost vs Performarrc]
Fig. FB-205
Navigational Technology Satellites Were
Prototypes for Global Positioning System (GPS)
■ Geo-Location Using Orbiting Stable Clocks
• Timation I Satellite (196?)
- Stable Quartz Oscillator
- 2 Year Lifetime
• Timation II Satellite (1969)
Ultra Stable Quartz Clock
6 Year Lifetime
■ Timation III / NTS I (1974)
- 1 ,1 32 lb With 5 Year Lilelime
Introduced Redundant Spacecraft Systems
First Orbiting Rubidium-Vapor Atomic Oscillator
Confirmed Einstein's Theory of Relativity
■ NTS II (1977) Was First GPS Satellite
Cesium Oscillator
- 1,711 lb With 6 Year Lifetime
First Flight of NIH ; Battery
■ Technology Transfer For DoD and Commercial Uses ol Space
Navigational Technology Satellite (NTS) II
NRL Received the 1992 Collier Award tor Aero-Astro
Achievement in Recognition of Program
Fig. FB-206
and we were ready to put up the first prototype GPS
satellite. This was also done under a Joint Program
Office. And I don't know if it was the first Joint Program
Office, but it was certainly the most successful.
In 1992, NRL, along with the Air Force's
SAMSO organization, The Aerospace Corporation and
Rockwell International, shared in the very prestigious
Collier Award. I think as you look at the elements of
this program, the advanced technology demonstrator,
transitioning the technology to the industry, developing
what has now become a major commercial off-the-
shelf capability, there is a huge market place for GPS
data products for this country. And it all came about
because the Navy, the Air Force, and industry were
able to cooperate as they never have before. And I
think the results stand for themselves. 1 know in my
career that there is no single thing that I was ever
involved in that gave me more personal satisfaction
than to have played a role in this GPS program.
The second satellite 1 would like to talk about
is called LACE (low-powered atmospheric compensa-
69
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
| LACE Technology Demonstration For SDIO
*
f*Is3^iri
Army Background Experiment
i Alamos Nallonil Labor a lory
Fig. FB-207
Government / Industry Teams Rapidly Produce
High Payoff Space Systems Like Clementine
... . „ »...»,_- _ . .1 Mission Operations Center
Mission Sensors (LLNL) 2t Months Concept To Launch INCST1
575 Million Mission Cost
Fig. FB-208
OpttcM Cowing Laboratory, inc
Sanla floaa. CA
OpitcM Flltara For UWC , HiHai
Clementine Industry Participants
Sdanca A Optical Tacnnkal
LbgMmsM Optical Saoaori
Itockat
AmOar Engaiaartng, trie.
•H.WA
Columbia, MO
MR a LWIfl Focal Plana Array*. Dmr
John«nCon««..n<.
■aavranco Taclvnology Conmatton
Spacacrafl Command Languaga
Elactronfca Daaigna
FarnUonlca Corporation
NIK3 Common Piaaauia Voaaal Banvy
Syatama Ellacllvanaoa A
EEE
Garmanlown, MO
Spacecraft Support Sarvlcaa
Prov«tod HgCdTa Cryatai For LWIM
LUton QuManu a ConOol Syatama. Inc
Woodland HWa.CA
Intainal Flbar OpUc Gyroacopa lnarllal
McOonnofl Douglaa Aaroapaca
Wwm a Electronic i Syatama
SI. LauM, MO
Laaar TianamWaf
Atlantic Raaoarch Cotpor
Niagara Falta. NV
Si-PropaHant TanU
tion
ANiad Signal Tacnnkal Sarvica*
Camp Spring., HO
Mtaaton Oparathon*
Tacrnlcal Aaalaianc*
TMoaot Corporation
Schaeltar UagnaUc*. Inc. -,,., ...
j^^^^^^^^^^L
ClkUHlMO
Star 37 FV Solid
Setar Array Dm** Aaaambh, FfMleiboi .
■■^■■^■■^■■^■■^■■^■■H
RocWt Motor
McLaafl, VA
Opltca For UWC, SIC, HIRaa. SoUHa.
Data HandHng Unit, DtgMaJ Ground
NIR a lwir Sanaora HachaMama
^Laa******************************!
CSF
Imaging Syataina
"i'm- Yiririarrti inr Kail Aai>uiw!>r:iiini>iaiiAiiy^^^^^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a1
Appkad Coharonl TachnologHw Corp
DaHaVWMor Ftaaedw
■kjjjjjj^ a HlHaa aanaota
knaga Procoaalng Tachnlcai Attlalanca
AppttadSoMiEiwgyCorp Martin *
Praita. ln«
City W InduaWy, CA Danvai,
:o
OaAa Solar Colli Titan *
Program Planning I Control,
Tha Aaroapaca Corp.
ElSagundo. CA
KlonElacI
on Davie*, thvialon MJ||<<
Enolnaarmg, inc.
Protaaia, Inc.
AOVancad Compoaita Structuraa
Spoe* AppWcaBona Corporation, Inc.
El Sagundo. CA
Ouidanca. navigation 1 Control
FttaM Softnwa
Syatama Englnaarlng
ftarrloft Tocttnohogy, Inc
Spacacrafl Simulation ■
■ttaawn Planning Sonwara
Riaaarcli Support matrwnanii
AJaiandria, VA
Sciatica A Optical TochMcal
HcDonnall Oougtaa Aaroapaca
Engmaaring 4 Tachnelogy Camar
Aaatatanca
Softwara Tacnitatagy, inc
HunHngaon Saach, CA
CompoatM IMoralaga Adaptai,
Syatama Englnaorlng
CornpoiHa Solar Array Sutoatralaa
Mnanuntca, Inc
SEAKR Ennlmarina. Inc.
WHtamna. FL
around Baftani*
SHyof Eogtnaartng, Inc.
Waat MaMourn*. R.
Digital Syalama. Ground
Qanaral Atomic
Support Equlpmanl
LORAL Corporallon
San Mono. CA
■
ow
KEY
■ Location ■ Sorvtoa
Me»ourna Saacn. FL
EnBtnaarnp
A Radiation Hardanad Uomory
Ring Laaar Oyroacopa Inarual
Fig. FB-209
tion experiment) [Fig. FB-207]. It was the first satellite
that was done by us for the SDIO. It was a very suc-
cessful program, also. The main thing with this pro-
gram is that the sponsor was continuously changing
the requirements. We had to always be adapting to
new situations. I think it's one of the fundamental
advantages of an in-house capability. When the spon-
sor — government sponsor — says he wants to change
the scope, if you're in-house you can react to that very
quickly. You don't have to renegotiate a contract or
anything. Things like the CIVPI instrument from Loral
were added 18 months before launch. SDIO decided
they wanted to launch another satellite with us and
they changed the launch vehicle and we wound up
using a Delta. There were a number of things that
were very unique about that program. The thing that
I think was probably most beneficial to us is we were
given an award by SDIO for the best program of the
year, but, more importantly, we had gotten their confi-
dence in our ability.
The next satellite that I'll talk about was award-
ed to us because of the LACE satellite and that's
Clementine [Fig. FB-208]. This viewgraph shows some
of the main elements of the Clementine program: the
spacecraft itself, the inner stage adapter, the sensors
or the cameras which were provided by Lawrence
Livermore National Labs, one of our NRL ground
stations, a 100 foot dish that was used in conjunction
with JPL NASA Deep Space network to take the data
from Clementine as it was going around the moon,
and then our mission control station, which some of
you may have heard of, referred to as the Bat Cave, a
very low cost operation. So the total Clementine satel-
lite was done in 21 months for $75 million.
Now this chart depicts one of the other impor-
tant characteristics of this program and that was
that it involved a very large team from the
industry [Fig. FB-209]. There were 45 compa-
nies and they were selected by us because we
felt they had the best technology that was avail-
able in the U.S. industry at the time. The next
thing is the question of the funding and how
that funding was divvied up. In spite of the fact
that Clementine, for the most part, received a
lot of good publicity, there was early criticism
that we were taking work away from industry —
and I think this chart shows that that's kind of
a "bum wrap" [Fig. FB-210].
The small NRL team consumed only 16 per-
cent of the total pie. The other 84 percent was
consumed by industry. But the point is, that 84
percent would have never occurred if it hadn't
been for the enabling capability that the Lab
brought to this program. Now I have to apolo-
gize, this is a very busy chart, and I'll leave it up
here while I try to explain some other things
70
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
Clementine's Low Cost Resulted From
Collaborative Government and Industrial Effort i
Ground Segment
Launch Vehicle
Small Government and Industrial
Team
Fixed Price Contracts For "Standard"
Components
Industry Skills and Cadre Via
NRL / DoD Support Contracts
Integration and Test In NRL / DoD
Facilities
Government Laboi
16%
Industry Labor
56%
$55M Spacecraft and Ground Segment
Unique and Appropriate Roles for Future Space 1 dfc ,
Systems Builds on Past DoD Successes ^H
Fig. FB-210
More Use of Advanced Technology Demonstrations
Expand and Diversity aMM Industrial Base
Transition Technology to US Industry
Effective Use of Commercial Technology
"Where and When to Use"
Compressed Development Schedules
Support the War-lighter
Prove Operation Concepts for Space and Ground
Systems
Partnerships With Broad Spectrum R&D Organizations
to Lower Cosl and Improve Performance |
imaliarVNT:
%T
ft
ft
ft
ft
.A,
ft
ft
ft"
ft
\ V
A
N'7
Ctemenhne
"ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
H
Fig. FB-212
Clementine Qualified Advanced Technology
for DoD / Industry / NASA
%
• IM wIon Canwria
-NBA* (NASA)
(NASA)
■ eoMCTtm
-ara(Doc)
-PtUtOFMt
Plyty (NASA)
* OaAttt* Solar C*ll
Airaya
Advanced
Technology
Demonstration
Cpmfuetanc* Hut
-RMMoud
Pragnm*
• Molt ■artwmanc*
nmrlm
-hfdlum(70)
-auk (NASA)
• {Mia
' |MM|WlW*d
-HxWptoOaO/
Fig.FB-211
about the Clementine program that aren't on the chart
[Fig. FB-21 I]. And that is, the reason Clementine
probably received so much favorable publicity was
because it was the first C.S. mission to return to the
moon in 25 years. It did completely map the surface
of the moon. Probably the most significant thing that
happened to the Clementine program, in my estima-
tion, was that it made the front page of the Weekly
Reader. Last night here the stage was full of a bunch
of young children that I'm sure all read the Weekly
Reader and they all know about Clementine. This chart
points out the motivation of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization and it was to qualify and transi-
tion all of those technologies, and that has been done
very successfully. All of the scientific data that got the
good publicity was serendipity, really. That was not the
purpose of the mission from the DoD standpoint. This
is all hardware here, it's hard to show a picture of soft-
ware, but there are a couple of software transitions
that occurred. Our Comet software has been
adopted by Motorola for the Iridium project and
by the GPS program office. Also we had devel-
oped a satellite control language which is ideal
for automated spacecraft operations, and JPL is
going to use that on its Pluto fast-flyby mission.
So I think the transition of the technology was
very successful.
Mow I'd like to go back and make that bridge
between what worked well in the past and what I
think is going to be needed in the future. The
rows on the left are the things that I think are
going to be important in our future [Fig. FB-
212]. The vertical columns are what we have
been able to do in the past and I think you see a
very good match there. I think the one thing I
would highly recommend to our seniors is that
we make more effective use of what we call
advanced technology demonstrators to reduce
the risk of some of these major space programs.
The other thing is that we will continue to try to
achieve compressed schedules because time is money,
and there is no better way to do it cheaper than to do
it fast. And maybe the last one is, I see the need to
have more and more partnerships in the future to
reach out to a broader spectrum of our community,
because nobody seems to have enough money to do
these things on their own.
And there is one last viewgraph that I have.
Bob Davis, who is the Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Space, was kind enough to accept our
invitation to give us his views on what the future issues
in space would be. He took that opportunity to chal-
lenge us to put down, in print, a vision statement:
What is it you guys want to do in the future? And then
to try to promulgate that throughout the aerospace
community and debate it. And this is the first time it
has really been shown in public. I can't think of a bet-
71
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. FB-213
ter place to do it than at this conference. I won't read
the whole thing, but the simple statement that you can
carry away with you is that we would like "to boldly fly
what never has flown before" [Fig. FB-213].
In summary then, I have tried to show what we
think has worked well in the past, why it worked well,
and what parts of it will have applications in the future.
Thank you.
Dr. Mark: It's a great pleasure for me now to introduce
our next speaker, who is a very old friend of many,
many, many years' standing. He is the current director
of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of California Institute
of Technology, which also doubles as a NASA center.
When I was serving as a NASA center director that dual
role always gave me a little bit of trouble. But it is a very
effective organization.
Ed Stone was appointed to that job in 1988
and has been the director since then. He also serves
as a professor of physics at the California Institute of
Technology, and I believe he's also the vice president
to the institute. So, he has a least three jobs, all of
which are eight-hour-a-day jobs, right? So he doesn't
sleep very much.
Ed has been — is known really and famous for
being — the principal scientist on most of our out-of-
planet exploration spacecraft. If there is anyone who is
responsible for what has now become called the
"Golden Age of Planetary Exploration," it's Ed Stone.
I remember working with him in those years, and it
was always a pleasure to watch him operate and how
he did business. He is a graduate of the University of
Chicago, from which he received his Ph.D., and is a
member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow
of the A1AA, and lots of other nice things. So with that,
let me ask Ed Stone to come to the podium.
Dr. Stone: Thank you, Hans. It is certainly my plea-
sure to be back this year and to talk about quicker,
better, cheaper and how that really fits well with what I
call the next phase of planetary exploration. NASA's
role is to do what hasn't been done before and to
expand the frontiers of this new realm of human activi-
ty — space — and not to do what others can do. In the
past we've done that in many ways, but certainly one
of the ways was the exploration of the planets with fly-
bys and orbiters.
All of the planets, except Pluto have been
explored by using technology to build increasingly
complex and capable spacecraft. And, as Hans Mark
said, it was this promise of increasing capability for
each succeeding mission that allowed one to constrain
missions like Pioneer 10 and 11. The approach result-
ed in the development of digital communications,
digital imaging, and computer-controlled spacecraft,
which in turn led to autonomous spacecraft.
All of these technologies led to increased
spacecraft capability and complexity. Voyager was the
spacecraft of the '80s, and in the '90s, it's the Galileo
spacecraft. The first decade of the next century will be
the Cassini spacecraft, developed jointly with the Euro-
pean and Italian space agencies, that characterizes this
particular development path of doing what has not
been done before. Those missions have done and will
do very comprehensive surveys.
The next phase of exploration really requires
much more frequent access to space, which means
much lower costs. We need to get closer to things; we
need to get 100 kilometers from objects rather than
10,000 kilometers. We need to get down into atmos-
pheres. We need to get down onto surfaces. We need
to actually bore beneath the surfaces, and we need to
bring things back from the
surfaces. That's the chal-
lenge of the next phase of
exploration, and that has to
be done in an affordable way
so that we can do it fre-
quently, not just once every
two decades, as was the
case for the Mars program
until a few years ago.
We were at Mars in
76 with Viking and we were
going back in '93 with Mars
Observer. We now have a
Mars program through which
we'll be going back every 26
months, with two missions
every time. You can't do that
if every mission costs $1 bil-
lion. You can do that only if
the missions are much, much
Fig. FB-301
72
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
less costly and much more focused. You have to
replace the promise of the larger, more complex mis-
sion, which made possible the constraints on Pioneer,
with the promise that there will be additional small
missions to be able to cover the other science that you
can't do on this current small mission.
The Clementine spacecraft showed that you
can build a modern spacecraft with the same mass as
Pioneer, at a lower cost in constant dollars by using
advanced technology to do things that could not have
been done with 1970s technology. Applying advanced
technology is an important factor in achieving quicker,
better and cheaper missions.
NASA now has three kinds of programs I want
to briefly discuss. One is the Discovery program, in
which each mission is constrained to cost no more
than $150 million in fiscal year '92 dollars and take no
more than three years to develop. The second is the
Mars Surveyor program, which now is intended to take
us back to Mars every time there is a chance at fund-
ing level of about $100 million dollars a year. The third
is the New Millennium program, which in many ways is
to do for the planetary program, what Clementine was
doing for the military program, that is, to serve as
technology test beds so that the small missions will be
able to rely upon new technology coming out of the
New Millennium program.
The first Discovery spacecraft, launched in
February is the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous
(NEAR) spacecraft built by the Applied Physics
Laboratory in 27 months at a cost in FY '92 dollars of
$112 million [Fig. FB-301]. NEAR planned to orbit the
asteroid Eros at a distance of about 50 kilometers
radius [Fig. FB-302J. The object itself is 40 kilometers
long. So this is going to be a very complex orbit, as
you might imagine. It certainly will provide a precise
measurement of the mass of the object, because of
the orbital dynamics, and of course, knowing the size,
we'll know its density, and whether it's a composite
with a density of 2 to 3, or has been melted and has a
density on the order of five.
NEAR has a number of very sophisticated
instruments, for example, imaging at a resolution of
several meters and infrared spectroscopy at the 300-
meter level. It will arrive at Eros January '99 and return
very strikingly new data during that time period. A very
good example of quicker, better, cheaper.
The next Discovery mission is the Mars
Pathfinder mission. The last time we were at Mars was
1976 when there were two Viking orbiters and two lan-
ders. If we were to redo that mission today, just the
same as it was but price it in today's dollars, it would
cost $3.5 billion. That's the reason we haven't done it
again. Mars Pathfinder will demonstrate a much lower
cost way of landing on Mars [Fig. FB-303J. The cruise
stage is the circular structure above the cone-shaped
Fig. FB-302
^U-fM
^^H. *<™PH^^H
mSS
yB^MflijHM^H
■Kk
W^^^m W~
yfsA
^^jj¥ AT
l^toJifV - rfafrMr^" 1
ife^
— ""^H
^5«^.' ^ ^p*^
0, -• ..
Fig. FB-303
Fig. FB-304
entry body, will land on July 4, 1997. Launched this
December, it directly enters into the atmosphere of
Mars with an aeroshell deploying a parachute, and
finally airbags to absorb the final energy as it descends
to the surface [Fig. FB-304].
Mars Pathfinder carries a small rover called
Sojourner [Fig. FB-305J. The 12-kilogram rover runs
on eight watts of electrical power on the average, and
has an alpha, proton x-ray spectrometer, which can be
placed against a rock to measure it's composition. It
has stereo-imaging so it can look at rock structure.
We're landing Sojourner in a place were rocks have
73
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
been carried
from a wide
region on
Mars by the
floods 3.5
billion years
ago, down to
the region
where they're
accessible.
The cost of
Sojourner is
$25 million
and the land-
ing system is
about $175
million.
That's the quicker, better, cheaper.
The next Discovery will be the Lunar
Prospector that is being developed by Lockheed
Martin, with Allen Binder as the principal investigator
[Fig. FB-306]. It's a 280-kilogram spacecraft, $51 mil-
lion (FY '92 dollars). It will have a 100-kilometer alti-
tude orbit and supplement and complement the data
that came from Clementine by using gamma rays and
FB-307
Fig. FB-308
Fig. FB-309
X-rays to determine the composition of the lunar sur-
face, and tracking the spacecraft will provide informa-
tion on distributions.
The next Stardust spacecraft will visit a comet.
The ESA Giotto spacecraft flew by comet Halley in
1986 and discovered that it was ejecting a lot of mate-
rial so fine that it is not visible [Fig. FB-307]. These
particles were mainly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen, the building blocks of organic material. And,
of course, the questions are "What is this material? Is
it organic? Is it part of the material out of which the
solar system formed? What role did this organic mate-
rial possibly play in the origin of life here on Earth?"
To answer these questions, we need to return a
comet sample to Earth. Stardust is a discovery mission
that will extend blocks of aerogel into the comet as it
flies within 100 kilometers of the nucleus of the comet
[Fig. FB-308]. The aerogel will capture the dust parti-
cles as they impact at five kilometers per second. The
aerogel will be retracted into a canister that will then
be returned to Earth for analysis in the year Aerogel is
a silicate material that is 99 percent empty by volume,
so it will not destroy the fine dust particles as they're
captured [Fig. FB-309]. So, here is a sample return
74
mission that fits into the Discovery class, costing less
than $150 million to develop in FY '92 dollars.
So that is the Discovery program, and the
intent is that there will continue to be opportunities.
These programs are led by principal investigator teams
that include industry with support by the Jet Propu-
lsion Laboratory. For Example, Stardust will be devel-
oped by Lockheed Martin Astronautics, with the Ames
Research Center involved in the heat shield that is
being developed for the return capsule.
Another example of quicker, better, cheaper is
the Mars Surveyor program. The first Mars Surveyor
spacecraft is being built by Lockheed Martin Astro-
nautics [Fig. FB-310]. This will carry six of the eight
instruments that were on the Mars Observer, will be
launched in November of this year, and will go into
orbit around Mars in September of '97. A circular polar
orbit will provide a complete high-resolution map of
Mars as well as some very localized ultrahigh-resolu-
tion so we can begin to look for some of the more
interesting regions on the surface where we might
want to send future landers and probes. The MGS
spacecraft mass is about 600-kilograms, about half
the mass of the Mars Observer, so it can be launched
on a Delta launch vehicle rather than on a Titan III.
Much lower launch costs come along with much
smaller spacecraft.
In 1998, there will be another orbiter and lan-
der. The lander, built by Lockheed Martin, will land in
the polar region next to the polar icecap. It will have a
camera and a scoop so we can look at the layered ter-
rain, which is presumably the result of the annual
deposition of ice and dust, and we'll be able to do a
residual gas analysis of the material that is collected.
Again this fits within the $100 million a year budget for
the Mars Surveyor Program.
Advanced technology is clearly the key to mak-
ing all of this happen [Fig. FB-311J. The early
Discovery and Mars programs have benefitted from the
Cassini project which has had the time and the money
to develop a new space transponder that is being used
by MEAR and will be used by Mars Pathfinder. The
hemispherical resonating gyro, which Cassini devel-
oped, is now on NEAR. But in the future, there will be
no Cassini-class missions to fund the new technology.
We need something like a Clementine program that is
technology-driven and not science-driven, so that the
new technology can be developed outside of the con-
straints of the science programs that have to fit within
their budget and their schedules and therefore cannot
use any significantly unproven technology. That's
where the New Millennium program comes in.
There are four New Millennium missions under
consideration [Fig. FB-312J: Deep Space 1, an aster-
oid and comet flyby launched in '98; Deep Space 2, a
penetrator probe, carried on the Mars '98 mission to
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
Fig. FB-310
Fig.FB-311
(^T
New Millennium Program
OS- 1 Ask'iokliiikU'nnk'i Hvhs
N^
I>S 2. M.iis Mkmpiolv
l)S i. l-'av-l-'lymp Inlcilaomcloi l-O-l. l-.arlli lili.^ni}; Mis
T ^
Fig. FB-312
probe the surface of Mars; Deep Space 3, which will
test some of the associated technology, putting an
interferometer into space so that optical and infrared
telescopes, separated by kilometers, can be optically
phased. Similar approaches to developing the technol-
ogy will reduce the cost and size of instruments for
Earth observing.
The New Millennium program brings technolo-
gy from throughout the nation. There are integrated
product development teams in six ares: communica-
tions, autonomy, microelectronics, modular and multi-
75
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
(ffif
New Millennium Program
ASHROII) ANIH'OMin II.YBY
i>i i r si'\i I \ \i iiimium 111,111 •-! r\sinii\ii ii i mm>i ik;ii s
Sl^CTKUM-
ASTROZZZZ
Fig. FB-313
BBS
SHORTER FLI
ADVANCED PI
SOLAR ELECTRIC PROPULSION
IN COMPARISON TO
CONVENTIONAL CHEMICAL
PROPULSION,
ION PROPULSION:
• REDUCES TRIP TIME BY A
FACTOR OF 2 -3 FOR THE 7
SAME LAUNCH VEHICLE
• ENABLES USE OF SMALLER
LAUNCH VEHICLES
• PROVIDES ACCESS TO A *
WIDER RANGE OF EXCITING
TARGETS AT AN
AFFORDABLE COST
ENGINEERING MODEL ION THRUSTER
Fig. FB-314
"^
# * PLUTO EXPRESS
■Uiiii'ii,,! h\hm-!,^ii'^iu,i Muston \tuJtt:
Fig. FB-315
functional systems, in situ instruments, and microelec-
tro-mechanical systems, and instrument technology
and architecture. There are 44 organizations involved,
including industry, other NASA laboratories, and feder-
al laboratories, such as the Phillips Laboratory. Lincoln
Labs and Sandia are part of this team because this is a
national effort to press the technology to reduce the
cost and size of future space systems.
pioration Roadmap (2000 2015)
by Goldin Huntress Rah;?
al team led by I
Fig. FB-316
The Deep Space 1 will demonstrate a number
of technologies: a flight computer that weighs 98
grams and a multifunctional structure, which is more
than structure, and others indicated in the figure [Fig.
FB-313]. Deep Space 1 will be launched in '98, has a
scientific objective to fly by comet Wild 2. One particu-
larly fascinating technology demonstration is the ion
thruster [Fig. FB-314]. After having talked about it and
talked about it for decades, this mission will use an ion
thruster to move about the solar system. Langley
Research Center has led the development, working
with TRW, the Hughes Electron Dynamics Division,
and Spectrum Astro. This particular thruster has a
thrust— a small thrust— of 30 to 90 mM, but a continu-
ous thrust for the 8,000 hours lifetime for this thruster
produces a V of 10 kilometers per second. It will
change the way we fly within the solar system. By the
way, the Mew Millennium program is funded at about
$50 million a year.
All of this will make possible a mission to Pluto,
the only planet that has not yet been visited. The Pluto
Express spacecraft is a 100-kilogram spacecraft, not a
1 ,000-kilogram spacecraft, which is designed to fly by
Pluto and its moon, Charon [Fig. FB-315]. We hope
we can start development in '99, so that we can fly by
Jupiter in the year 2006, arriving at Pluto in the year
2013.
With the new focus on in sit explorations, we
need a new road map for exploring the solar system,
and such a study is underway [Fig. FB-316]. It involves
a 56-member development group, including 13 indus-
try participants, other NASA centers, and other federal
laboratories. Again, the idea is to gather the best ideas
so that we can lay out a general road map for the next
phase of solar system exploration. We can then make
investments in the technology that enable in situ explo-
ration and the return of samples of the many bodies
that share the solar system with Earth.
Thank you very much.
76
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
Q&A
Dr. Mark: We have a number of questions, and some
are for Pete (Wilhelm) and some for Ed (Stone). What
I'll do is start myself and then go down the line. Do we
have any more questions? Well let me start.
Gsing lessons learned from Pioneer, what
changes would you make to the next generation of
manned launched systems?
Right now I don't think there's going to be a
next generation of manned launched systems. I don't
think the current political situation will really permit the
kind of investments to actually develop a new genera-
tion. Therefore the lesson to apply is, what can we do
with existing manned launch systems to improve
them? In this country we have the Space Shuttle. The
shuttle is a good air frame, but it ought to have new
avionics, it ought to have new control systems, we
ought to get rid of the hydraulic actuators, and we
ought to perhaps put on new liquid boosters. There's a
lot to be done to improve the existing Space Shuttle.
In terms of management, NASA is already doing what
really needs to be done, and that is to put the opera-
tion of the Space Shuttle on contract. We should have
done that a long time ago. NASA is not an operational
organization. I think that this move will improve NASA
and also improve the operation of the shuttle. The
other manned launched vehicles around are the Rus-
sian launch vehicles. We ought to take a good look at
what American technology could bring to the Russians
to improve their manned launched vehicles. I really
believe that right now I would recommend that we do
not think about a brand new generation of launch
vehicles. I just don't think it's in the cards.
Mr. Wilhelm: One question here I'll read: Clementine
made a successful mapping of the moon but spun out
of control on May 7, 1995, and failed to rendezvous
with asteroid Geographos. What's the status of the
orbit of Geographos, and will you send another space
probe to attempt to map the object again?
The short answer is no. We will not send one
out to Geographos. There is another mission called
Clementine II, which is an asteroid encounter mission.
It was a plus-up in this year's congressional budget.
The verbiage says that it should be done by the same
Clementine team, which specifically means Naval
Research Lab, Lawrence Livermore, and Phillips Lab.
The funding for that program right now is being held
up, as are a number of congressional plus-ups, be-
cause of the need to pay the bills for Bosnia. Whether
that money will be released shortly we can only hope.
But it will be an exciting mission in that it will actually
send probes out to intercept three different asteroids
over a period of two years.
Dr. Stone: My question reads: Will international coop-
eration in satellite manufacturing create a longer
acquisition process, increase cost, and reduce the
threat of reduced capabilities to appease all countries
involved; i.e. the major delays associated with the
International Space Station?
Our experience in the planetary program has
been that the international cooperation, which has
occurred now for some time, has really been very
good. For instance, the main engine which put Galileo
into orbit around Jupiter, was provided by Germany. In
the case of Casinni, there is major European contribu-
tion. The Huygens probe is an ESA development, and
the main radio system and antenna are provided by
the Italian Space Agency. Those cooperations have
enabled those programs. We had a recent flight of a
synthetic aperture radar system involving the German
and Italian Space Agencies. So, international coopera-
tion, at least in the programs I'm involved with, will
grow. If there are more missions, which I hope will be
the case as we reduce the cost of missions, there will
be more opportunities for cooperative activity to really
leverage the investment that each of the nations can
make.
Dr. Mark: Let me look at this question. The panel
addressed specific cases of things that have been
done well, but did not mention the launch costs asso-
ciated with getting into orbit. What are your opinions
on improving our launch capability?
If there are more missions, which I hope will
be the case as we reduce the cost of missions,
there will be more opportunities for cooperative
activity to really leverage the investment
that each of the nations can make.
You know, I have never believed the talk of the
creation of a cheap launch vehicle — 17,000 miles an
hour is an awful lot of kinetic energy, and it is always
going to be expensive to get things into space. I don't
think there is such a thing as a space truck or whatev-
er people want to call it. Let me give you my opinion
about what needs to be done to reduce launch costs,
and I know this is one that perhaps may not be popu-
lar. The fact of the matter, ladies and gentleman, is
that Earth is awash in launch vehicles. We have thou-
sands of surplus military rockets that could easily be
turned into launch vehicles, and in a limited way we
have already done that by taking the 50-plus Titan II
rockets that we had and converted them. The Russians
have 300 SS-18's that we could turn into very capable
launch vehicles. Now, I know that there are some folks
in the launch vehicle industry who are unhappy about
77
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
that thought. But if you ask me how we lower the cost
of getting into space, then the answer is to use what
we've got. People say, well refurbishment costs are
high. I don't believe that. I believe it is cheaper to take
a Titan and refurbish it than to build a new one. Martin
has done that. And I think that's what I would recom-
mend if we were really interested in reducing launch
costs in the near term.
Mr. Wilhelm: There are a couple more questions
relating to Clementine II. I think I've said about all I
can about Clementine II right now. There is another
one here, though, that makes a point about the multi-
spectral imaging that Clementine was able to do of the
Moon being very useful, and since warfighters can also
use multi-spectral imaging, shouldn't we take some
credit for supporting the warfighter? I'm always willing
to take credit for supporting a warfighter, but 1 think,
seriously, there are other programs that we're looking
at that will use multi-spectral and hyper-spectral imag-
ing to support the warfighter. It's pretty well established
that hyper-spectral imaging is very effective at discern-
ing camouflage and looking through camouflage, and
things like that, so it can find man-made targets quite
easily. That is another program, but multi-spectral
imaging and hyper-spectral are very definitely some
of those exciting new technologies.
If you're going to do things faster and cheaper
it almost forces you to use existing hardware,
and that automatically reduces rather than
increases the risk.
Dr. Stone: Does "faster, better, cheaper" necessitate
small, single-use, specialized payloads? Isn't this what
the former Soviet Union has done since its inception
which is antithetical to the traditional American
programs?
I think we've discussed that. As Hans pointed
out, the traditional program has been one of increas-
ingly complex and capable systems, at the rate of once
per decade. So you wanted it to do as much as you
could since you have one chance a decade. With the
approach of having many launches in a decade, it
makes sense to have single-purpose missions, be-
cause other scientists will have an opportunity to do
what they think is important within a reasonable period
of time, and not wait one or two or three decades.
Dr. Mark: The near-Earth asteroid rendezvous mission,
NASA's first discovery mission, was developed in 27
months for less than $120 million by John Hopkins
University's Applied Physics Laboratory. The paradigm
for development was point for point with your first and
78
second slides. Haven't we just realized that we've come
back to the future? Can dedication and teamwork
overcome politics and budget constraints?
The answer is simple: yes. My hope is that
once this thing is launched and flies it will be as suc-
cessful as Pioneer 10.
Mr. Wilhelm: One more question on Clementine II, the
joint program with Phillips Lab. Please comment on
status of program. Congress has provided a ringing
endorsement of the program — in fact a mandate that
it should be done. What is your prognosis for the pro-
gram? Is it going to happen, or is it falling victim to
inter-service politics?
I've told you what the status is relative to the
money being held up, but I can say it is not because of
inter-service politics. The Naval Research Lab and
Phillips Lab are absolutely in lockstep on this program.
We both want to see it go, and it could be another
example of the two services really operating and coop-
erating together very well. I certainly hope the program
gets unstuck.
Dr. Stone: There are several questions here all having
to do with how one can better convince Congress to
fund these programs and how one can better engage
the public to get public support for these kinds of pro-
grams. That is a challenge. I think certainly in my dis-
cussions in Washington it is clear that many of those
who have some responsibility for the NASA program
do believe that the direction of the source of things
which I have described are the right direction for the
space science program. It's just that we're all caught
up in this environment where the discretionary part of
the budget is the only place to go to balance the bud-
get. And the NASA budget certainly seems to have
been hit very hard. At least the projections for the year
2000 — $11.6 billion — certainly constrains doing very
much of what I've described in that time period. So it
is a very serious problem. It's a problem which is tied
up with much larger issues the nation's dealing with. I
feel we have to make sure that decision makers, both
in the administration and the Congress, understand
the quest for investment. That this is for the nation,
and somehow in dealing with the immediate issues of
balancing the budget, some short-term decisions that
are and aren't made, in fact, have a critical, long-term
disabling effect on the program.
Dr. Mark: Faster and cheaper almost always imply
increased risk. The question then is based on that
proposition. But before I get to the question, I want to
talk about the proposition a little bit, because it's not
at all clear to me that it's correct. The question of risk
is associated with knowledge — knowledge of your
FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER
hardware, detailed knowledge of your hardware. One
of the major properties, in my judgment anyway, of
doing things better and faster and cheaper is in fact
to use hardware that you have already flown, that has
already been used. We always did that when we did
both the Jupiter Pioneers and Pioneer Venus. As a
matter of fact, in the case of Pioneer Venus, all we did
was cut up a Hughes communication satellite and use
it as it stood. So I would have to say if you use existing
hardware, I don't agree with the initial proposition of
this question. If you're going to do things faster and
cheaper it almost forces you to use existing hardware,
and that automatically reduces rather than increases
the risk.
The question then is, of course, what risk miti-
gation management approaches have we learned to
add "better" to the equation? In my travels around the
industry and the NASA centers and the military labs
since I have left active building and operating of space-
craft, I find that we have gotten a lot better in doing
test programs. We have automated a lot of the testing.
We have learned how to do many more tests in the
same time. I saw that in your place, Pete, when we
were doing Clementine. I went into that, as you know,
in great detail. And I think we have learned a lot about
how to do test programs cheaper, and I think that's the
last answer to this rather interesting and complicated
question.
Mr. Wilhelm: My next question is, what aspects of the
NTS LACE and Clementine projects would you like to
see implemented by the current aerospace industries?
I think the one common denominator across all of
these programs was that they were all done on rela-
tively compressed schedules, which as we've talked
about quite a bit, saves cost. And 1 think many in
industry have demonstrated their capability to do very
fast turnaround, and I think unless companies can
demonstrate that capability they're not going to com-
pete very well in the future. So that would be my
advice to them.
Dr. Stone: What are the best ways to transition
advanced technology, that is from the New Millennium,
to the broad U.S. space industry, not just to selective
program participants?
I think that the whole point of the New Millen-
nium Program is to focus a limited resource on some
key areas and to do it so that development is then in
the private sector and available for incorporation in
other space missions besides the planetary science
missions. So I think that is the basic approach in New
Millennium. In general, for technology developed at
JPL, we make it known through NASA Tech Briefs, and
we have a Technology Affiliates Program. If you have
other suggestions, please let me know how we can be
more effective in transferring the technology which is
being developed to industry so it becomes part of the
economy more quickly.
Dr. Mark: I have to confess I have another question
where I am not sure I agree with the proposition, but
let me read it to you. "NASA Headquarters could oper-
ate with streamlined management in 1969. What hap-
pened to NASA Headquarters and its centers in the
1980s and the 1990s? Does NASA have a road map
for returning to streamlined management? And will the
centers empower industry to perform on contracts or
continue to perform developments in house?"
The question then is, of course, what risk mitiga-
tion management approaches have we learned to
add "better" to the equation?
This is a good question and it is a complicated
one. Whether you can execute something with a
streamlined management depends really on how badly
the political system wants to do it. I spent some years
as the director of the National Reconnaissance Office
and, as you know, the president is the chief customer
organization. He badly wanted his pictures and his
information so we could do things in a way that
bypassed much of the political system that normally
controls how federal money gets spent. The answer to
the question of what happened between the 1960s
and the 1990s is very simple. In the 1960s NASA was
politically popular and today it's not. Whatever else you
say there is a very small constituency for the kind of
things we've talked about here. And if I listen, you
know I get asked to testify before various congression-
al committees, I would have to say that with few excep-
tions most of the questions I get are hostile. You know,
why are you spending so much money? Do we really
have to do this? Why are we doing that and why are
we doing this? And so 1 think that what is regarded as
streamlined management really should be translated
into political popularity. If what you're doing is some-
thing that the political leadership wants to do, then
you can have streamlined management. If it is some-
thing that you are really doing kind of against the
wind, which is the position we are in today, then 1 think
you're going to have a problem.
Editor's note: Due to technical difficulties in the
recording process, the rest of the question-and-
answer part of this session cannot be provided.
79
ity for Mother Earth
TAKE UP
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
Global Security Interests in Space
Master
Moderator:
Session
Chair:
Keynote
Speaker:
Steven R Scott
Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space Systems Division
General Joseph W. Ashy, GSAF
Commander in Chief
NORAD/U.S. Space Command
Commander
Air Force Space Command
The Honorable Robert Davis
Deputy Undersecretary for Space
U.S. Department of Defense
Speakers: Brig. General Willie B. Nance, Jr.,
USA
Deputy Commander
U.S. Army Space & Strategic Defense
Command
Maj. General Robert Dickman, CISAF
Space Architect, Acquisition &
Technology
U.S. Department of Defense
Rear Adm. Katharine Laughton, USN
Commander
Maval Space Command
Maj. General David Vesely, CISAF
Commander
1 4th Air Force
Jeffrey Grant
Director, Office of Plans & Analysis
National Reconnaissance Office
Mr. Scott: Good morning, everybody. I'm Steven
Scott, and welcome back to Day Two of the 12th
National Space Symposium. Yesterday we looked
across a wide spectrum of space systems and dis-
cussed the growing range of applications now and in
the future, with the emphasis on commercial utility.
Today we'll focus on several global security aspects
of space.
And leading this morning's panel is Gen.
Joseph W. Ashy. Gen. Ashy is commander in chief,
North American Aerospace Defense Command, the
unique binational command that includes Canada and
is responsible for the air and space security of North
America. He is also the commander in chief of the
U.S. Space Command and commander, Air Force
Space Command. In his present position, Gen. Ashy
has been shaping U.S. doctrine in the use of space for
national security, and can speak from experience as he
guides us through today's discussion of global security
space issues. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome
Gen. Joe Ashy.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you very much and good morning
everyone. First, I'd like to thank Gen. Hill and Dick
MacLeod and the United States Space Foundation for
including us in a very productive and very vital forum.
The Foundation is a wonderful organization, and we're
proud to participate again this year. I'm personally
proud to represent the men and women of NORAD,
United States Space Command, and Air Force Space
Command as the moderator of this panel and discus-
sions this morning.
Before I introduce our distinguished guest
speaker, let me tell you why his position is very impor-
tant. The space community was rightly criticized in the
past for not having all of the organizational elements in
place to deal appropriately with policy, acquisition, and
coordination issues, and so I'm proud to report to the
Foundation this morning that we now have a deputy
undersecretary for Space, Mr. Bob Davis, in place and
functioning, I should say, very effectively. We have Maj.
Gen. Bob Dickman, who is our new space architect, in
place. We have a Joint Space Management Board
(JSMB) that's now been authorized and is functioning,
and we have a Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(JROC) that's functioning and reviewing military space
requirements. Specifically how our requirements fit,
work and interact appropriately together. And those,
altogether with our command, which has assigned
missions given to us by the president through the sec-
retary of defense and the chairman, have formed the
beginnings of a very effective and very good team, I
should say, teams within a team.
That is what Mr. Keyhole, Mr. Bob Davis, Maj.
Gen. Bob Dickman and I testified recently before the
Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact the Sub-
committee on Strategic Systems, I think, sent the
message back saying, "Hey, we got the message." Bob
81
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
probably will talk about this a little bit in his remarks.
Mot only did we get the message, we made it
happen. So now, we need to move out, and 1 think
again Mr. Davis will acknowledge that and in fact is
moving out. 1 think all of you know him. He is a superb
leader. In his new job, he deals primarily in policy and
strategy, but he also gets heavily involved in acquisition
and international cooperation matters as we come to
grips with space related issues. Before coming to this
very important leadership position, he was the senior
professional staff member of the Committee on
Appropriations of the G.S. House of Representatives.
He is from Tulsa, Okla. A state that calls itself a state,
but is really a northern county of the great republic of
Texas. He went to the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), and certainly has extensive experi-
ence with our intelligence space entities and organiza-
tion from the oversight perspective. Ladies and gentle-
men, give a warm welcome to the Deputy Under-
secretary for Space, U.S. Department of Defense,
Mr. Bob Davis.
Mr. Davis: Thanks, Gen. Ashy, for that kind introduc-
tion. Let me say, it's a great pleasure for me to be with
you here today and to be able to share my views with
you on where I think the Department of Defense is
headed in terms of space and our evolving global
security interests. Actually, after eight straight months,
it's a great pleasure for me to speak on any topic other
than the "Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
for Space and its Role in Space Management." Since
the G. S. Space Foundation asked me to address
something new, I have to believe that after a dozen
speeches, either I've finally made my role clear or, at a
minimum, the audience has already heard that
speech. Either way, it's nice to have a new topic.
By the time we developed an effective strategy,
the capabilities and systems that supported
that strategy were also in the hands of not
just our global peers, but the next lower
tier nations as well.
What I'd like to do today is to paint, with a
pretty broad brush, what's going on in space — where
we've been and where we're headed — and how it likely
affects our national and our global security interests,
our strategy, and our doctrine. I think it's telling that
while I've been asked to give the remarks for this ses-
sion, the podium will be filled shortly by folks who
make a living by formulating space doctrine and strat-
egy and conducting space operations. That's quite a
mix of responsibilities. More than anything else, this
demonstrates the close interaction between the capa-
82
bilities and systems on one side of the space equation
and the doctrine and strategy on the other side.
About a month ago the National Security
Industrial Association hosted a conference for me
labeled "Space: Thinking Out of the Box." Some of the
same people who were panel members there are
speaking at this conference this week. 1 don't know
how many of you were able to attend that meeting but
I personally found it to be very thought-provoking and
very stimulating. I learned a lot from the two days
there and I want to continue that dialogue we began
within the DoD, the intelligence community, and with
our industry partners. I think the topic here today is
linked directly to the sessions we held last month.
Space is changing; how we manage space is chang-
ing; the systems are changing; and the space actors
are changing. The very fact that I'm standing here —
my office just celebrated its first birthday — I think
those are significant indicators of the change that is
actually in place. The continuing revolution in military
affairs is mirrored by a revolution in military uses of
space. It is changing our global security landscape. If
we don't begin thinking out of the box we won't be
able to recognize the revolution; we won't be able to
react to it; and we definitely won't be able to stay
ahead of it, and it will happen without us. What does
that mean?
Let me explain by beginning with an unsup-
ported assertion which is also my personal opinion.
My assertion is this: Space power today is at a turning
point comparable to where air power was near the end
of World War II. Why do I say that?
In 1903 the Wright Brothers made their first
historic flight over the beaches at Kitty Hawk. Over the
next 30 years we worked on developing aircraft and air
power. We conducted tests, set records, demonstrated
new capabilities, fielded new technologies. We used
the airplane during World War I as a platform for
observation and some force application. We engaged
in counter air. The Billy Mitchells and Guilio Douhets
developed early strategy and doctrine. Some of those
strategies were right, some of them were ultimately
wrong. It wasn't really until World War II, though, over
30 years from that first flight, that we really began to
integrate air power into our overall strategy. That inte-
gration was hastened because we were forced into it;
the Navy because it had lost most of its battleships,
and the Army Air Corps because it was the only means
of attacking the continent. Even after the war, the
proper role of air power was not properly assessed. We
had to learn some new lessons in Korea and again in
Vietnam, as well as improve some technologies. We
especially had to learn how the doctrine was affected
by the existence of an air-capable adversary. We really
hadn't completely integrated air power's role until we
developed the Air Land Battle concept in the '70s. By
the time we developed an effective strategy, the capa-
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
bilities and systems that supported that strategy were
also in the hands of not just our global peers, but the
next lower tier nations as well.
Compare that history to space and where we
are today. In the late 1950s, the CI.S. headed into
space. Over the next 30 years we worked on develop-
ing space craft and space power; we conducted tests,
set records, demonstrated new capabilities, fielded
new technologies. We used space systems during the
Cold War mostly as a platform for observation and
force enhancement. Both Department of Defense and
the national intelligence community have developed
some strategy and some doctrine for how we should
use space. Some of it is probably right; some of it may
ultimately prove wrong. It wasn't really until the Gulf
War, though, over 30 years from the first flight, that we
really began to integrate space power into our overall
strategy. That integration was hastened because we
were forced into it. We had to deal with threats like
SCUD missiles that we hadn't adequately planned for.
And we had to operate in an area in the desert where
the type of terrain and lack of communications infra-
structure forced us to rely on space-based systems like
communications, positioning, and reconnaissance. But
even after that war, the proper role of space power is
probably not fully appreciated. We will most likely learn
some lessons in new conflicts, in future conflicts. And
we'll continue to improve technologies. We have yet to
learn how the doctrine will be affected by the existence
of a space-capable adversary. And that's something for
us to think about. The problem is, 1 don't know that
we've got the time. I'd hate for somebody to be stand-
ing here in 35 years — I guess at my age I'd actually be
happy just to be able to stand here in 35 years under
my own power — but I'd hate for someone to be stand-
ing here telling you that by the time we developed an
effective strategy the capabilities and systems that sup-
ported that strategy were in the hands of not just our
global peers, but the rest of the world as well. The rest
of the world was watching our first space war; they will
not mark time until the next one. In a nutshell, that's
the problem that we all face, and the one I think we
need to address today.
The revolution in military space will have pro-
found impact on the global security interests of the
United States. We, as space warriors and space policy
managers, need to recognize that fact and prepare for
it. It's a two-sided challenge: First, how do we continue
down the path we've just set out on and truly integrate
space into warfighting doctrine and terrestrial opera-
tions?; and second, how do we prepare for the time in
the not too distant future when we face adversaries
that use space nearly as well as we do?
Integration of Space Into Warfighting Operations
Before I begin, let me acknowledge that it's
Gen. Ashy's job, not mine, to truly integrate space in-
to our warfighting doctrine — but I do get a vote. I think
there are some interesting possibilities that we need to
consider. I'm told that about a year before the Gulf War
there was an argument as to whether or not we should
use DSP to give tactical warning for a SCGD-like mis-
sile attack. Obviously, we decided to do it. When we
were forced to make it work, we did. Through efforts
like TENCAR and through the hard work of a lot of tal-
ented people over the years, we've managed to take
space capabilities designed for one purpose and use
them for another. On the one hand, that's a monu-
ment to initiative and ingenuity. On the other, it's a fail-
ure on some of our parts to adequately incorporate
space operations and doctrine into our thinking.
I look at studies all the time about what we'll
be able to do in and from space in the future, whether
from the Defense Science Board, private industry, or
New World Vista reports from the Air Force, and
although we all recognize that new systems are right
around the corner, we haven't been sufficiently aggres-
sive in applying these capabilities to new doctrine and
new strategies. Those capabilities that were fielded
only in our imagination a decade ago will be into the
hands of our operators a decade from now. What are
we going to do with them?
And we had to operate in an area in the desert
where the type of terrain and lack of comm-
unications infrastructure forced us to rely
on space-based systems like communications,
positioning, and reconnaissance.
What's the effect on the battle if the comman-
der can view the actions of his individual troops a
hemisphere away in Clancy-esque fashion a la "Patriot
Games?" We all remember how President Carter was
patched through to Desert One during the aborted
Iran hostage rescue. What would it have meant if he
could have seen the action unfolding in real time, or,
using a hand-held personal communications system,
spoken directly to the commander? How would the
plan have changed if we could have landed without the
aid of deployed landing systems or the need to even
see the ground? These things will be possible within
the decade. Have we prepared for their impact? I'm
not sure we really have.
This past summer we in the Pentagon spent
considerable time and energy building a consensus for
a new Global Broadcast Service, or GBS. We got the
program approved and we carved out nearly a half bil-
lion dollars worth of funding with more to follow. We're
already building the system. And yet, even today, when
I ask what we intend to do with 24 mega bits per sec-
ond of data, what echelon it should go to, and what
83
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
information should be sent, I don't get a consistent
answer. CJsing the combination of space assets, CJAV,
Global Positioning, and the Global Broadcast, we
could theoretically select a target, launch a Tomahawk
from well over the horizon, guide it to the target, see it
impact, and then re-engage that target or move on to
the next one all in the matter of minutes. It's some-
what easy to see how this kind of capability can
change our tactics; it's tougher to envision how we
change our doctrine and our strategic thinking. Now
don't take any of this to mean that I'm unhappy with
the Global Broadcast decision. On the contrary, I think
it's great. Using capabilities like hand-held mobile
communications, and smart weapons, we have gained
an unprecedented capability to synchronize the battle-
space. And yet I feel like the guy standing in his garage
after inventing Velcro saying, "This is great! Mow what
do 1 do with it?"
The problem isn't in figuring out how to use
the systems we're fielding; it's deciding which direction
to head. If we don't understand the doctrinal impacts
of the systems we deploy, we can't appreciate where
we should be investing our dollars. What would it
mean to the warfighter in the future if we could fly a
reusable launch vehicle that gave him unprecedented
access to space? Air Mobility Command knew the doc-
trinal implications of access to the battlefield and so
designed a C-17. How would an RLV affect our use
of space? Could it tip the balance in usage from force
enhancement to force application? How will small
satellites affect the operational tempo? What new ter-
restrial capabilities should we be planning, given the
new space capabilities we intend to build? If I can't
answer these questions— if the warfighter can't answer
these questions — then we as a department can't plan
the systems that will give us the most leverage not just
for the next generation, but the generations to follow.
The problem isn't in figuring out how to use the
systems we're fielding; it's deciding which direc-
tion to head. If we don't understand the doctrinal
impacts of the systems we deploy, we can't
appreciate where we should be investing our
dollars.
We faced the same problem after World War 11.
The Air Force drew the lesson from the war that it was
the age of the strategic bomber. SAC was king and
tactical air was shortchanged. We didn't understand
how air power should best be integrated into warfight-
ing doctrine. That left us woefully unprepared for
Korea and Vietnam, where tactical bombing, not
strategic bombing, ultimately was the key. Our first
space war may not be the model for future wars. We
need to do the thinking if we hope to build the right
84
mix of capabilities.
Gen. Dickman, who will be up here on stage, is
the space architect. He is wrestling with these issues
right now in his Military Satellite Communication
Architecture study. Previous studies looked at the exist-
ing systems and put together an architecture that
merely replaced them. We've got to do better. We need
to understand how communication satellite usage will
change as we move into the next century. We need to
understand how these new communication systems
affect the way terrestrial systems work and change our
tactics or our systems to take best advantage of these
new space opportunities. We're working on a National
Security Space Master Plan to lay out the broad view
of this structure and the Space Architect is working the
individual system questions. But without a clear strate-
gic view, our plans will consistently aim behind our
possibilities. We must plan carefully for the integration
of space into our warfighting operations.
As I've outlined, integration of space into
warfighting is our first challenge. It's important, but in
the final analysis, if we fail to do it properly the worst
we risk is an inefficient use of resources for an extend-
ed period. The second challenge, the one that is in my
mind more threatening, is preparing for the time when
the adversaries we face will be able to use space to
their advantage the way we use it for ours. That day
may be arriving sooner than we had previously imag-
ined. There are two factors that are hastening the
arrival of that day: the commercialization of space and
the rapidly growing international expertise in non-com-
mercial space systems.
We don't need to look much further than this
room to understand the commercialization of space.
Nowhere is that commercialization more evident than
in the satellite communications arena. We all know the
names— Irridium, Globalstar, Odyssey, ICO, Teledesic,
Spaceway, and my apologies to any of you whose sys-
tems I didn't mention— the list is becoming endless.
During the next 10 years, there will be more space
communications platforms and more space communi-
cations capacity launched than in the entire history
of satellite communications. In 10 years, through the
commercial market I'll be able to buy Direct Broadcast,
worldwide point to point hand held communications,
private VSAT networks, space borne wide area comput-
er nets, and processed switched bandwidth capacity at
near EHF frequencies— all from the privacy of my own
home, or from the local terrorist training camp.
In the next 10 years there'll be imagery avail-
able down to 1 -meter resolution or better as a com-
mercial product. Within 10 years there will be access
to GPS worldwide with the same degree of accuracy —
or better — now reserved for authorized military users.
Imagine, if you will, the scenario of any individual in
the most remote corner of the world able to order and
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
download a GPS benchmarked image of any target in
near real-time from a deployed computer terminal
hooked into the Global Information Infrastructure via
direct satellite connections. What if that individual also
has access to a GPS guided weapon, say a Cessna
with GPS autopilot loaded with conventional explo-
sives? What could he do? What should we be doing to
counter that?
Today, only the U.S. has the capacity to field-
processed, crosslinked communication satellites. The
rest of the world will soon be able to get access to that
technology from the commercial marketplace. The
same is true for highly accurate GPS using soon to be
available wide area augmentation systems. But in the
not too distant future these products will also be avail-
able from non-(J.S. sources. Through industrial part-
nering and outright purchases, the desert will be in the
hands of both our allies and our foes in the near
future. We can forestall this process — through export
controls, licensing restrictions, and international coop-
erative developments which give us some say in how
our technology is used — but we have no hope of halt-
ing it. We're in the mode of buying ourselves time.
And it's time we must not squander. The chal-
lenge for the G.S., the policy manager, and the
warfighter, is to develop the mix of national space poli-
cy and operational space doctrine that will allow us to
operate the new space order as effectively as we did in
the old. We need to develop the systems that can
counter the hostile use of space, and tactics that ren-
der that use ineffective. We need to do this while at the
same time preserving and improving our ability to
operate in that medium. That's not an insignificant
task. And we need to do it soon. I don't know when it
will occur, but 1 guarantee in the near future this threat
will emerge. It's only a matter of time.
What I do know is, we will not arrive at the
answer to either of these questions — how should we
best use space and how should we prevent it from
being used against us? — unless we open our perspec-
tive. We do not have the resources to develop space
systems the way we have in the past, nor to wait until
those systems are developed to create the doctrinal
changes that make them useful. We need to relook at
our entire approach to space system support and space
systems operations to make sure we are poised to take
advantage of the opportunities afforded us by changing
technology and not to be hampered by the way things
worked into the past. If this means breaking down the
walls between intelligence and DoD space systems, then
those walls must fall. If that means moving to reusable
launch vehicles or contractor-run launch operations,
then that's the direction we'll head. If it means relying to
an ever greater extent on commercial communication
systems tailored to our needs, then we need to put in
place the policies to make it possible. We need to find
the core competencies in space, determine how they
affect the doctrine, and then put in place the policies
which move us in that direction.
My organization's already begun this process,
as has Gen. Ashy's. But it's a task we must all
embrace. I'm not certain the answers I'm coming up
with today will be the ones that get us to the goal
tomorrow. But lack of the correct answer certainly will
not prevent us from asking the right questions.
Thinking out of the box is not a solitary task. It is a
group exercise in which we all must participate. In
1945, when Arthur C. Clark envisioned a geostationary
satellite through which earthbound communication
occurred, he was definitely out of the box. Then the
box expanded again 25 years ago when someone envi-
sioned a signal from space that would eventually allow
pinpoint navigation. The box continued to expand. We
can stay ahead of it only by looking into the future,
questioning our strategy and our doctrine, and plan-
ning for space offense and space defense. Or we can
remain anchored to our current ways of doing busi-
ness and be swallowed as the limits of the box over-
whelm us. If we let that happen, then we haven't done
our jobs.
I have a quotation from retired Adm. Bill
Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, taped to the computer screen at my desk in the
office. I probably read it a dozen times a day. It says,
"Today, the real risk lies in hesitating, and the real pay-
off will go to the bold, the innovative, and the inven-
tive." I believe his statement is true not only for those
of you here today who will almost certainly be called
upon to fight real wars, but it is also true for those of
us who must fight the bureaucratic wars necessary to
change the way we do business to provide better
space support to the warfighter.
We need to relook at our entire approach to space
system support and space systems operations
to make sure we are poised to take advantage
of the opportunities afforded us by changing
technology and not to be hampered by the
way things worked into the past.
To those of you in the audience today who may
still be entirely too comfortable with the way DoD and
the intelligence community have conducted our space
business in the past, I say, "Watch out." This is a time
of change. It is our intention to make change a way of
life for those involved in national security space activi-
ties. For those who do not want to be "bold," "innova-
tive," and "inventive," as Adm. Owens said, then I
leave you with the admonition that you will not be part
of our space future. To those of you who are already
committed to change and helping to lead the way, I
say, "Thank you." You are now and will continue to be
85
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. GS-101
Sl'ACK MISSIONS
■nnniiiliiif^iiOHl
Virm S..n. fonir Olliu
■ Mini \t M \l' M..i«i!.'i>
5JWR. <s«w;j#;5f *f" ill
f , HiH^g,
I .S. \ll.ll lti»il>l "K.^ 1 ,«I l.vt t .li'llll.
■ M .« nwl \.1,«> H ^l*r.-.-.s,H, liihiii>h.L-»>
Mitmlnhott Ltixl Vitalisis Iittegrjlion ( .-iiUi
USASSDC -rT"^
Fig. GS-102
a critical part of ensuring the success of our national
security mission in the 21st century.
In conclusion, Gen. Ashy, I appreciate all of the
help you have given me and my office as we were get-
ting started. I look forward to continuing the close rela-
tionship that you and I and our staffs have established
in order to improve space support to the warfighter.
Thank you for permitting me to share my
thoughts here today.
I'd like to now introduce our distinguished
panel members. The first is Brig. Gen. Bill Nance, who
is representing Lt. Gen. Jay Garner here this morning.
Jay, as you know, commands U.S. Army Space and
Strategic Defense Command and is dual hatted as the
commander of Army Space Command. Bill is the
deputy commanding general. We regret that Jay
couldn't be with us this morning, and he sends his
best to everyone. Bill certainly is a very capable repre-
sentative, and we're honored to have him. Bill has a
distinguished career; I won't go into all the details. He
has extensive operational experience, coupled with an
extensive background in the acquisition business.
Before he comes up here, let me briefly explain how
he fits into the panel.
As you all know, NORAD has three regions.
One in Canada, commanded by a Canadian officer,
one in Alaska, and one in the continental United States.
To go along with that organization, since the comman-
der, yours truly, is dual-hatted, U.S. Space Command
has three component commands. One is the Army
Space Command, which I just described to you, com-
manded by Bill and Jay Garner. They have a forward
headquarters out here in Colorado Springs, and I tell
you they do an absolutely fantastic job supporting
warfighters and operating some space systems like
DSCS, the defense satellite communications system.
We have Rear Adm. Kathy Laughton here with
us this morning who I will later introduce. She is the
component commander for Naval Space Command,
reporting to me as USCINCSPACE. And Air Force
Space Command, delegated to 14th Air Force. Maj.
Gen. David Vesely is the Air Force component to U.S.
Space Command.
Before these three speakers speak, 1 wanted
you to know how they fit into the organization here.
They are all three very key members, and they are the
ones in fact that make things happen as Bob Davis
described with regard to executing our military mis-
sions, given to us by the president through the Unified
Command Plan (UCP). Without further ado, help me
welcome Bill Nance.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you, Bob, for getting us on the
right course. Just a recap of what we're going to do
this morning in terms of our agenda. I'm going to
briefly introduce our other panel members, in the
order that you see them at the table, then we'll take a
break, I'll come back and make a few remarks as the
moderator to get things going. Our panel members
will all come on stage. If you will write out your ques-
tions for the panel, we have a system set up to distrib-
ute them here to Col. Gary Dahlen. If you'll write your
questions out, we'll have people pick them up. Gary
will be sitting up here to help me put them in some
sort of order so we can address your questions.
86
Brig. Gen. Nance: Thank you, sir, and thank you for
the opportunity to be here this morning. I have about
five view graphs and the purpose of those view graphs
is to share with you what the mission of the Space and
Strategic Command is, how we support Gen. Ashy and
the other war-fighting CINCs, and also to talk briefly
about the Army Space Exploration and Demonstration
Program and what we're doing with that to bring space
capability and technology to the war-fighting CINCs.
The Space and Strategic Defense Command is
the Army's focal point for space and strategic defense
matters [Fig. GS-101]. And in that role, we have two
primary responsibilities. First, we're responsible for the
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
exploitation of space and strategic assets and to get
that capability into the hands of our soldiers and our
war-fighting CINCs so that they can do their jobs.
Secondly, we're also responsible for the technology
base activity to support the development of space-
based technologies and systems and missile defense
technologies and systems.
We have six commands within Space and
Strategic Defense Command, and I'll spend some time
focusing on the Army Space Command (ARSPACE),
but I will also tell you how the roles of each of the
other commands' play in our mission [Fig. GS-102J.
The Army Space Command Office is located in
Fairfax, Va. They manage the Army's TENCAP pro-
gram. They have, over the course of time, developed
and fielded 60 systems and deployed those to 26 sites
worldwide to bring the information we get from our
national capabilities to our warfighters.
The Kwajalein Missile Range located in the
Pacific certainly has the responsibility to support mis-
sile testing, but is also responsible for supporting oper-
ational activities in support of Gen. Ashy in space sur-
veillance operations. They spend about 128 hours per
week on their systems doing deep-space tracking
operations. Additionally, they support NASA in tracking
Space Shuttle launch and activities.
The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility
(HELSTF) located at White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico, has a testbed capability and is available to
DoD agencies for them to bring their laser systems to
the test bed facility for experimentation, testing, and
exploitation.
In Huntsville, Ala., we have a Missile Defense
and Space Technology Center. Their primary activity is
to focus on the technology-based activities that sup-
port space technologies and missile defense technolo-
gies. In Huntsville, we also have the Missile Defense
Battle Integration Center. The center has a modeling
simulation capability that can be used in a synthetic
battlefield environment for analysis and provide oppor-
tunities to look at the utility of space assets and missile
defense assets.
The Army Space Command, as Gen. Ashy said,
is the Army's component support of him and the U.S.
Space Command, and provides space capabilities to
our war-fighting CINCs [Fig. GS-103]. They are head-
quartered in Colorado Springs. They have civilians and
soldiers deployed around the world who are providing
that capability. A couple of their missions are shown
here. They operate the worldwide defense satellite com-
munications systems [DSCSJ. The soldiers belong to
the First Satellite Communications Battalion. They, in
conjunction with the Navy, operate the Joint Tactical
Ground Stations [JTGS]. We currently have two sta-
tions deployed, one in Europe and one in Southeast
Asia. The ARSPACE is the parent command for the
ARMY SI'ACK COMMAND
■ ll|VI.,l,.|„„|1„„l, V vl,.-|l, l.„
■ tlprr.Ur. ,r,l IV/./.if, N„< I I
/ tiliiri I Hon.
• I rixrnrlmr \m;, s r . K , v,p: |
• ( I'rnr.tmv \.:..rVu n r> ..ui,
• I ./..,.i,<i.^k,,l, M Utl SI 1W
Command and Control Relationship
xxjrn'
*«gr
xx a a:
».>,Mj3nni
Fig. GS-103
Fig. GS-104
Army's astronaut detachment. Those astronauts are
located at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
A capability that they have is that they are
"green ramp" available, that is, ready to deploy when-
ever required to wherever required as shown in this
chart in Army Support Teams [Fig. GS-104]. Those
teams have the equipment and the trained people to
go wherever they need to go to provide this capability.
The INMARSAT system provides small receivers and
transmitters so that we can leverage commercial
satellite capabilities for communications with our
satellites. We use multi spectral imaging so that we
can get up to date mapping and terrain data to our
decision makers in theater and we can also take a
multi-spectral image, load it into a computer, get a
three dimensional picture and, in effect, produce a
movie capability so that you can do mission planning
and rehearsals. If you need to fly an air mission, you
can develop a movie that will allow you to fly that; If
you're doing convoy route planning, then you can use
that capability to look at the terrain that the convoy
will operate over.
The capability that ARSPACE provides has
87
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
LS\RS1>\0
(OMIM.I M N SLPPORl
Fig. GS-105
ARMY SPACK KXPl.OI I A HON
DKMONSTRATION PROGRAM SUCCESSES
— r \; -m
ARMY THEATER MlSSH*OEFENSE ELEMENTJAIMDE) (itW
SUCCESS^. COMMERCIAL SP>rf"pACKAOE (1»«) ^ i
'"""-^-f^ ARMY SgAeE"SUPPORT TEAM <ARSST><1«W1 \
JOINTTACTlCAl GROUND SYSTEMJjtAOS) <1«W]
.^"'TERRAIN RECONNAISSANCE JPOt (TRT | (*
ADVANCED COMMUMCATKWIS
SPACE ENHANCED COMMAND AND.
MISSION PLANNING AND REHE>*SAl SYSTEMiMPRS) (19M)
GLOBAL POSrTKjNING SJ(STEM (OPS) TRACKING |1M1)
TELLITEMULTBP«<TRAL WAGEflYMAPPING (1W1)
SklfetLITC WSATHER RECEIVlfl (WRAASE) I19W)
>^LL UO]HTWEIQHT OP»l(ECEIVER (SLORK1"»t
>-^ * "
92 93 94 95 96
fig. GS-106
been in existence for awhile. It has supported the Army
and the war-fighting CINCs in the various missions
[Fig. GS-105]. From Desert Storm, Somalia, Rwanda,
and Haiti, our soldiers are doing a great job of sup-
porting those requirements.
One of the programs that we currently have
that is doing a great job identifying space technology
and performing rapid prototyping to bring that capabil-
ity to military application, is the Army Space
Exploitation and Demonstration program [Fig. GS-
106]. This chart shows some of the success this pro-
gram has had from 1990 through present day. If you
look in 1990, just prior to Desert Storm, there were a
couple of programs that were being demonstrated —
the small lightweight GPS receiver and the satellite
weather receivers. The units involved in the demon-
stration of those programs requested those capabilities
be deployed with them. We continue to operate that
program on an annual basis. The structure by which
we operate that is through the Commerce Business
Daily. We seek good ideas from industry and acade-
mia about space technologies that we can use for mili-
tary application. When those ideas are provided, a
panel of experts review them; and we then select tech-
nologies to provide funding for demonstration and
rapid prototyping. In summary, I would say that the
Army's Space Command, Space and Strategic Space
Command, and the Army serve as members of the
joint team to ensure that space technologies and
capabilities are available and provided to our warfight-
ers. Thank you very much.
Gen. Ashy: Before I introduce our next speaker, let me
just say I recently visited Jay Garner at his headquar-
ters in Washington, D.C., and I'm really proud of our
Army Space Command and all they do for us, as Bill
alluded to and we'll hear about later. They are heavily
involved in the business of preparing us for a ballistic
missile defense system in North America, our National
Missile Defense System, and I'm sure we'll have some
questions on that, and we can discuss that later.
Our next panel member and speaker is no
stranger to this forum. It's Bob Dickman. His new title
is architect, and I don't know what that means. He's
explained it several times. So has Bob Davis. He'll get
up here and tell you what it means again, but I hope
you all will ask him some questions about that.
Seriously, what it means to me, after we've got
a policy and a strategy and we've got a military
requirement properly articulated, he is the guy. He and
his people put this thing together so that we can build
the house. We can build the capability. He's got exten-
sive experience in the space business and certainly the
acquisition business. I'm proud of him because he's an
operational commander of a space launch wing out at
Patrick, Cape Canaveral. He did a great job. I can per-
sonally attest to that because he was in Air Force
Space Command when he did it. We're really proud to
have him and his office stood up, and we're proud of
what he's doing and most specifically what he's about
to do. Help me welcome back Bob Dickman.
Maj. Gen. Dickman: It is a pleasure to be back. I have
a lot of trouble holding a job, but the constant in my
life seems to be that I get to come back to the
Foundation every year, so it's probably worth it.
We stood up in October last year. Our charter,
as Bob Davis explained, is to provide space mission
and system architectures. If you will, we are a line
organization under Dr. Kaminsky, but at the same time
we provide an awful lot of technical support to Mr.
Davis' office and to other parts of the community that
want to look at very detailed, specific things about the
space business. We are not in the acquisition business.
We support Bob Davis in that, as well as the service
acquisition executives. We are not in the requirements
business. Gen. Ashy is our requirer; the Joint
Requirements Oversights Council is our validator of
the requirements.
88
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
In the best of all worlds we would have both a
space master plan and a complete set of packaged
and well-vectored requirements in place before we
started any architectural work [Fig. GS-201J. That is
not the case, as you are all well aware, and so we are
in fact trying to nibble that elephant a bite at a time.
Looking across the top part of that matrix for the vari-
ous mission areas: communications, remote sensing,
and the others as well and on the side to whomever is
a space provider for this capability. It is becoming
more and more clear, certainly to the component
commanders for Gen. Ashy, that it is not military space
programs themselves that will provide the capability
that our warfighters will use but those that come out of
DoD-driven programs, the intelligence community, the
civil programs as well, and to a larger and larger
extent, commercial sector.
We are about six months into our first architec-
ture [Fig. GS-202J. The first was military satellite com-
munications. As Bob mentioned, a lot of fallout from
last year's effort led us to take that on first. Second is
space control, that is how we protect our own systems,
how to deny space capabilities from someone else, or
keep a third party from interfering in what we want to
do. The third, which we're just kicking off, is satellite
operations. How do we "care and feed" a satellite in
orbit? Our commitment is to deliver an architecture
nine months from start and start a new architecture
about every three months, so we have MILSATCOM
about two-thirds of the way through its process, space
control about a third of the way through, and satellite
operations just beginning.
In the six months that we've been working on
MILSATCOM, we've gotten some vectors, and what I'd
like to do is spend a couple of minutes explaining what
those are taking us toward in a couple of the areas
and then we can leave the rest for the Q & A session
or however you'd like to pursue them if you're interest-
ed. As we do any architecture, our first step in general
is to go out to industry and find out what the technolo-
gy will bear, go to the services and try to understand
the doctrines, work with Gen. Ashy's folks to put in
place a capstone requirements document that gets
above the level of the detailed databases of require-
ments and actually can give us a vector against which
to move space systems, and finally to deal with the
actual customers themselves. Mot the warfighters —
that's Gen. Ashy's role — but the troops that are out
operating satellite communications terminals, what's
important to them. From that we've got a number of
trends, not at all firm. The Joint Space Management
Board will pick an architecture from a number of alter-
natives, and in fact some things are going to happen
and some things aren't going to happen based on
those decisions.
The area I'll talk about first is terminals [Fig.
GS-203]. It is one that is absolutely fascinating to us. I
Fig. GS-201
®
Architectures:
2010+
Convergence/
Augmentation
SpL'utrum
After Six Months
What's New?
1 ermiiiiih
1
I'l-olL-Lliim
1 aunch
Interlaces
2
Fig. GS-202
Terminals
Terminals May (Will?) Drive Future Space
Systems
Reduce O&M Costs
Platform Integration
"... To The Cockpit"
"... To Hverv Ship/Sub"
".. To The Tank. Marine"
"... To The Soldier/Marine"
- Reduce Investment
Fig. GS-203
would assert to you that terminals "will," but — because
there is still uncertainty — I'll say "may," actually drive
future space missions. In the past, our space capabili-
ties have probably been driven more by the technology
that we could put on orbit. However, there's a number
of factors that are driving the ground side of that. The
first is simply the reduction of O & M costs. We are
putting 900 soldiers, sailors, and airmen through a 34-
week course at Fort Gordon every year to produce just
satellite communications terminal operators. That's
about 500 man-years per year training people who will
89
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Interfaces
All SATCOM Must Be Part Of DISN/DT1!
End Equipment Must Be GCCS!
Presume Everything Will Be Secure!
Time/Location "Tag" All Traffic?
Fig. GS-204
leave the military on average within something like six
years of completing that training. We're spending hun-
dreds of millions of dollars on maintenance costs
alone. If we expect space systems to be ubiquitous,
across the warfare spectrum down to the combatant
level, we simply have to change that paradigm of the
level of training required and the maintenance we need
to do for our operations.
Taking that same step of the ubiquity of space
to the space terminals themselves, without exception
looking at service doctrines and the plans of the
warfighters, the requirements that we get from CS-
CINCSPACE, everyone tells us that the products will
have to be delivered to the end customer, not the
command centers, not the echelon above corps, not
the Joint Forces Air Component Commander, but the
airplane, the tank, the armored personnel carrier, the
soldier, the marine. If we're going to do that, we have
to have a fundamentally different way of building ter-
minals. We have to have a fundamentally different way
of looking at the data we're going to provide.
Hundreds of megabytes to a wristwatch terminal sim-
ply won't work. And yet the doctrine is pointing us in
that direction. Warfighters are building their plans
assuming that information is going to be available.
We've got to change how we look at the satellite and
how we look at the terminals as well. You can buy a
terminal. Many of you have, for your house, for under
$500, and it allows you to tune hundreds of channels.
That is a satellite terminal. It is a highly sophisticated
piece of equipment. We may spend 10 times that for
our satellite communications terminals. We may spend
100 times that for our satellite communications termi-
nals. But we shouldn't spend 1,000 times that or
10,000 times that, and that's what we're spending
today. We've got to change that initial investment cost
as well.
The final vector that I'd point out is interfaces,
and 1 apologize; it's a little bit of alphabet soup, but I
hope it's one that's familiar to a lot of the audience —
the Defense Information System Network and the
Defense Information Infrastructure [Fig. GS-204]. It is
simply an assertion by us that all satellite communica-
tions, everything we do, every bit we pass has to be
part of the larger DISN architecture, so it is absolutely
transparent to the warfighter whether or not satellite
90
communications is in that communications media. It
may go "fiber." It may go twisted pair. It may go satel-
lite. It has to be independent to the end customer.
Taking that one step forward, we have to move away
from dedicated terminals. A Milstar terminal that can't
do anything else is almost useless to that person who
has to carry it out with him. It's got to be GCCS, the
Global Command and Control System compatible.
We are assuming that everything we do will be
encrypted. Whether that actually turns out to be the
case or not I don't know. But from everything that
we're hearing from information warfare says we simply
cannot afford not to make that presumption. So the
systems we buy, the systems we lease, have got to be
secure. And I would also assert we will time-tag and
location-tag every bit of traffic that comes out of a
space system sometime in the not too distant future.
So that warfighters and our data bases will not only
include what it is, what the intelligence is, but when
the data was collected, where it was collected — and
so we have a three-dimensional view of the entire bat-
tlespace that is always current and always logged. A lot
of visions of where we're going. I look forward to talk-
ing to you about them in more detail in the future.
Thank you.
Gen. Ashy: Our Naval Space Command, as I men-
tioned, is commanded by Adm. Kathy Laughton. It's
been a great experience for me being teamed up with
her. She and her people do a great service for Naval
services and Naval warfighters out there. I just visited
her headquarters at Dahlgren, Virginia — and it's not
the first time — but it renewed my view that they're
doing a great job. They are a vital and superb compo-
nent to (J.S. Space Command. Kathy in her own right
is a superb leader, as she has proven time and time
again in a superb career of service to the nation and
the U.S. Navy and the Naval services. As you all I think
know, her background is primarily in the communica-
tions business. Ladies and gentlemen, would you help
me welcome Kathy Laughton.
Rear Adm. Laughton: I want to start by thanking the
United States Space Foundation for inviting me, and a
special thanks to Gen. Ashy for hosting this distin-
guished panel.
The subject of Global Security Interests in
Space is a fascinating one for Naval forces. In many
ways it represents the challenge faced by our maritime
forces for centuries as they projected force around the
globe [Fig. GS-301]. As this viewgraph clearly illus-
trates, we are certainly global in deployment today.
As Gen. Ashy said, space is a very powerful tool
to be used by those forces in harm's way. We need to
be innovative and proactive in our use of space in pro-
viding all appropriate tools. The Navy has been leading
the way for many years in this arena. The need
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
Fig. GS-301
remains, the complexities involved in meeting that need
grow daily. We are now faced with a complex mixture of
civil, commercial, and military space capabilities on a
global scale. The capabilities available to us are only
partially exploited. We need to squeeze every ounce of
capability out of space-based resources that we can.
The growth in space dependence and the related secu-
rity considerations can be illustrated by looking at the
loss of space capabilities. We are used to thinking in
terms of air, ground, and maritime forces. The loss of
any one of these in a conflict would radically change
the strategic picture. I would encourage all of you to
look at space in that same strategic way.
If Desert Storm is used as a baseline for this
examination, the results are remarkable. Ninety percent
of theater communications relied on satellites.
Particularly in this area, there was a rich mixture of civil,
commercial and military satellites, some owned by
other nations or as part of an international consortium.
Could we communicate without satellites? Yes, but not
at the level required to fight the war as well as we did.
Without space-based navigation, our forces would
have been forced to maneuver and fight in a feature-
less terrain with inaccurate maps and charts. Lack of
this capability would have affected gunfire support,
strike planning, mine hunting, and the use of precision
weapons — all of this using a GPS system that is
become more commercial by the day. Could we have
done our job without GPS? Yes, but at a cost.
Gen. Ashy's DSP early warning system was the
heart and soul of the SCGD alerting network. Would
the Patriot batteries still have been able to counter the
incoming missiles? Possibly.
The air campaign in particular was highly sen-
sitive to the weather conditions. Without the military
and civil weather satellites, the highly accurate timely
forecasting required would have been impossible.
No space support means limited ELINT/SIGINT
from national sensors, including the unique wide area
images from commercial LANDSAT and SPOT sys-
tems. Imagine relying solely on organic sensors
for critical intelligence information.
I want to congratulate each of you in this room
today. Your collective efforts made sure that the
resources were available to Gen. Norman
Schwartzkopf. Now we need to look at the challenges
that lie ahead of us. There are a lot of questions being
faced by the members of this panel as we look to the
future:
• What is the mix of civil, commercial, and mil
itary space assets?
• How can we be assured of the ability to use
those assets in time of conflict?
• Will the "civilianizing" of space, as seen in
GPS, impact our edge in using those precious
resources?
• Are we capitalizing on all possible capabilities
for the benefit of the warfighter?
The capabilities available to us are only partially
exploited. We need to squeeze every ounce
of capability out of space-based resources
that we can.
These questions address our security interests in
space and represent a huge challenge to us today.
Thank you.
Gen. Ashy: As I mentioned earlier we have three com-
ponents in U.S. Space Command, and representing
the Air Force component this morning is Dave Vesely,
who commands 14th Air Force headquartered at
Vandenberg Air Force Base. Dave has extensive opera-
tional experience throughout the world as a fighter
pilot. He has been in the intelligence business before,
and before taking this job he was the commander of
the Space Warfare Center out here at Falcon Air Force
Base. He is certainly not new to this community. He is
a very key member and a component to the CIS.
Space Command. Would you help me welcome him
back?
Maj. Gen. Vesely: Thank you, Gen. Ashy. I am also
from the state of Michigan, which is far enough north
and cold enough that it is not claimed by either the
republic of Texas or the state of Oklahoma. That does
give me some relief.
It is great to be here to discuss some perspec-
tives on global security interests in space. What I'd like
to do is take a few moments to familiarize you with
how 14th Air Force is adapting to that changing world
91
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
and a quick review of how we did the business in the
past. As we all know, we were entrenched in a Cold
War for many, many years, with the Soviet Union.
Space in those days was postured to ensure that we
had global access for the important surveillance warn-
ing, communications, and other things necessary for
the global conflict against the Soviets. We had strate-
gic sensors and a strategic command and control sys-
tem which was modeled after the Cold War paradigm
that we all knew so well. Those systems basically met
the needs of the day, but the space systems them-
selves were not able to respond very well to a changing
environment. Among other problems, the command
and control system that we had was very cumbersome
and stilted. It was not designed for war fighting, much
less the full range of military operations that we were
going to face after that Cold War ended.
That became very evident when Iraq invaded
Kuwait and we became embroiled in Desert Shield and
Desert Storm. But what that conflict did do was high-
light the immense potential for space systems to con-
tribute to military operations. We also learned how far
we had to come in order to take full advantage of
space forces, and our previous speakers have alluded
to that. We had changes necessary in organization, in
doctrine, in our systems, in our operational con-
cepts — and we are pursuing virtually all of those.
Now this change may seem trivial, but it has
really been pretty extraordinary. We are now
organized to carry out the basic
military tenet of centralized control and
decentralized execution.
Specifically, command and control is very, very
cumbersome. At the time of Desert Storm it was very
poorly structured to be very responsive to that war-
fighter. So among the changes we've had to make to
the force structure is the organizational change that
Gen. Ashy had alluded to — an organizational change
designed to be able to control and exploit space sys-
tems for the good of the military operator. Now as
Gen. Ashy explained, the U.S. Space Command now
executes space forces through its component com-
manders, much like in other geographic CINCs. Gen.
Garner executes Army space forces, and Adm.
Laughton executes the Naval space forces. As the Air
Force component commander, 14th Air Force has the
responsibility to command, control, and execute Air
Force space resources. Now how do 1 do that? Well, it
cannot be done by some central authority who does
not have the responsibility for those forces. So 1 had
to develop an operational center in order to do that:
commanding, controlling, and executing. We are
doing that.
What I would like to briefly review with you is,
what does that operation center do? it is very much
like an air operation center that an Air Force compo-
nent to a fighting CINC would have. It does four basic
functions. First it is a fusion center to provide the sta-
tus of space forces, because I need to know what my
forces look like and how they are postured. That is not
an uncomplicated process, when you are looking at
131 units in 36 locations in 15 time zones around the
nation. Much of that was previously done, by the way,
in Cheyenne Mountain. The second function is a glob-
al information center in order to provide me an under-
standing of the environment that the commander I am
supporting is facing. Whether it is in the intelligence
order of battle or the weather system that he is facing
or, in fact, the space environment that we almost face.
The third is it has to be linked to a warfighter or a sup-
ported commander. I do that through Air Force space
support teams, because I have to know what that
commander is trying to do to win his war or how he is
going to pursue his objectives. What is his game plan?
How can 1 support what he wants to achieve? And
finally it's a decision and execution center to best con-
figure and execute the space forces in support of that
commander or in the direction that Gen. Ashy has
given me as a CINC space.
1 have an interim space operations center
today. We started in December with a STCI-3 and a fax.
It's getting far, far better and it's in 24-hour operation.
This summer we will have a new facility with a robust
crew, and we will be full up and running to do those
four functions. How well is it working? Gen. Ashy
asked me the same thing. He didn't trust my answer
so he sent the Air Force Space Command Inspector
General to give me an Operational Readiness
Inspection and, oh, by the way, give the ORI to my
subordinate wings at the same time. The ORI validated
and the IG validated that in fact we were doing it pretty
well, and we are certainly going to do better as we get
our new systems and get full up and running. Now this
change may seem trivial, but it has really been pretty
extraordinary. We are now organized to carry out the
basic military tenet of centralized control and decen-
tralized execution.
So, in summary, I would like to report proudly
that 14th Air Force is leaning forward, always trying to
improve how we're going to control and exploit space
in support of CINC space and theater commanders
worldwide. 1 am looking forward to the discussion a lit-
tle bit later on. Thank you.
Gen. Ashy: Our last speaker and panel member, cer-
tainly not least, represents an organization that's
absolutely vital to national security. I'm talking about
the National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO).
Representing the NRO today is a distinguished mem-
92
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
ber, Jeff Grant. It's great to have him back, and we
appreciate his being here to represent the NRO. Jeff's
got extensive experience in that organization and in
the intelligence business, and he is extraordinarily
well-qualified to represent the organization and
address us here today. Help me welcome him back.
Mr. Grant: Good morning. On behalf of Keith Hall and
approximately 3,000 men and women in the National
Reconnaissance Office, I want to thank you for inviting
me to address you today. It's a rare opportunity for the
NRO to come to forums like this, but I think more
often we're getting the call.
I wanted to talk a little bit about our past in
addressing the theme of today's conference, "Global
Security Interests in Space." I wanted to give it from the
perspective of the NRO and the intelligence communi-
ty. I wanted to briefly go over our mission statement
because I think many people don't truly understand
that. I'll quote, "We're to ensure that the United States
has the technology and the space assets needed to
acquire intelligence worldwide. The mission is accom-
plished through research, development, acquisition,
and operation of the nation's intelligence satellites."
Very simply, we see that as a worldwide respon-
sibility, and cradle-to-grave responsibility. It's an orga-
nization that has over three decades of history. We
were born during the Cold War, and our focus during
those three decades was the Cold War. I'd like to sort
of reflect on how we did. The counterpart of the direc-
tor of the NRO, Lt. Gen. Palchuk spoke at a confer-
ence last May in Washington, and he said, "I am proud
of my service and of yours. We both labored during
the Cold War to keep our leaders informed. Every time
our leaders feared the worst, our evidence showed the
intentions of the other side were not so dire. 1 know
that we both helped the Cold War from becoming a
hot one." But those days are behind us. I think the
speakers earlier have all reflected on the number of
changes we've gone through, and so we're getting new
direction and new focus.
The National Security Strategy document that
was recently signed out challenges us to continue our
collection activities and to make them broader. To that
end, the organization and its mission are declassified.
Many of you may have been present in May of last year
when we had the Corona program declassification, a
large public celebration at the National Air and Space
Museum. The result of that is that the many men and
women who put together a remarkable program have
for the first time been given the public recognition they
so richly deserved. In addition, millions of feet of film
have been declassified and are being archived and will
be available on the Internet.
Speaking of the Internet, the NRO has a web
site now. It went operational within the last month, and
we get thousands of hits a week now from many peo-
ple who are interested in just what we're doing. We've
received many compliments on the information con-
tained in there, because we do believe the days of
being a Cold War agency are behind us.
We've been through a number of organizational
reviews, and we continue to be under organization
reviews. After an extensive one in the early 1990s, we
went through a major reorganization. The result of that
was to create a position called the deputy director for
military support. That position is currently headed by
Gen. Dave Baker, and as we've created an operational
support organization and have representation in the
unified commands, so we actually have NRO person-
nel on site. We've changed our organization to align by
functional responsibilities, not parent organizations.
The legacy of programs A, B, and C, the NRO consist-
ing of the CIA, the Air Force, and Navy are behind us.
Now if you go to our web site you'll see that we're
organized by "INT" (referring to the "INTS," i.e.,
HOMINT, SEGINT, etc.).
"We're to ensure that the United States has
the technology and the space assets needed
to acquire intelligence worldwide. The mission
is accomplished through research, development,
acquisition, and operation of the nation's
intelligence satellites."
Just as we've changed organizationally, our
missions and customers have grown and changed
substantially. I think our systems have successfully
responded in recent years to the diversity of the global
threats we face, the rogue states that we face, and the
broad variety of intelligence issues that are challenging
us. As we have done that, we have not lost our focus.
Our focus is clearly support to military operations and
to the military. You'll see NRO systems providing key
intelligence for indications & warning (INW), for map-
ping, charting & geodesy (MCNG), supporting prepara-
tion of the battlefield, precision strike, bomb damage
assessment, and while we're doing all of those things
in areas such as Bosnia, you will find us supporting
key diplomatic efforts in areas of the Middle East, the
Balkans, and Korea. You'll also see us monitoring the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, monitor-
ing the trafficking of narcotics, supporting the activities
against international terrorism, economic intelligence
gathering, and more recently, environmental and
humanitarian support with the systems that we build
and operate.
The National Security Strategy challenges us to
focus our collection and our activities where open
sources are inadequate (e.g. newspapers, periodicals,
TV news reports, etc.), and we must consider changes
93
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
in our intelligence-gathering techniques because of
things like the Internet and CNN. We're challenged to
have intelligence continuously available, not a rare
brief sample product. And so we have committed to
produce and operate systems that are timely and
responsive to our customer base. We are allowing
many more of our intelligence products (because of
the change in classification of the products) to be dis-
seminated across the world at a higher reliability level
than ever before.
I took a recent trip to the CAOC in Vincenza,
Italy, where the IFOR forces were operating out of, and
it was just remarkable for me to see over a dozen
nations routinely using the products of NRO systems
in support of the IFOR mission. The technologies that
have allowed the better dissemination of the data have
clearly allowed us to support a broad range of cus-
tomers, and not those just in the Washington area, as
we have done over the decades.
In looking to the future, I see the challenge as
maintaining our technical edge. Indeed we spy from
space, and in order to spy from space, you have to be
capable of doing things that people do not credit you
with doing. And so our capabilities in space reconnais-
sance in the future must continue to improve, and we
must maintain the edge. Our challenges are doing this
in a declining budget environment, and when there is
a broad range of competing interests for other intelli-
gence collection and processing exploitation. Just as
defense and commercial communications coexist, I
believe so shall the systems that the NRO builds and
operates and the other commercially licensed space-
imaging companies. Thank you very much for your
time, and I look forward to your questions.
The technologies that have allowed the better
dissemination of the data have clearly allowed
us to support a broad range of customers,
and not those just in the Washington area, as
we have done over the decades.
Gen. Ashy: Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin
the Q&A session, I would give you my perspective
from a U.S. Space Command view. These remarks
build on what the panel members have already said,
and will help you frame your questions setting the
stage for our discussions to follow. Talking to Gary
Dahlen, who was sitting over there, he's already got a
number of questions, and that's really good. We look
forward to those discussions.
I'd like to frame my remarks by referring to our
missions, which I think is the key to our discussions
with regard to this panel on national security. As Mr.
94
Davis said, we need to look at these missions con-
stantly. But assuming that we've got the missions
down, and I think we're pretty close, certainly in
today's world, then we need to allow the military
requirements to flow from the missions and their
objectives for accomplishment. No capability can exist
without a military requirement first. I promised Mr.
Davis and Maj. Gen. Dickman, when we all got togeth-
er as this newly formed team, that we would do our
absolute dead-level best to articulate properly from our
missions what those military capabilities and require-
ments should be. After Mr. Davis and his office look at
the strategies and policies that go along with the mis-
sions, then we can give it to the architect. After the
architecture is planned, then the acquisition communi-
ty can work with our support partners in the commer-
cial sector and in the industry, to field a better, faster,
smoother, and cheaper capability that is responsive to
the warfighter and our national security perspective.
I'll talk a little more about that later, but first let
me go through the missions. We have given them a lot
of thought, we constantly do. One of the first missions
that we need to address from the U.S. Space
Command perspective is to support NORAD, and, as I
mentioned earlier, the commander is dual-hatted.
The common command and control node is
Cheyenne Mountain. We do this support primarily from
the space surveillance business. As you know, we track
over 8,000 objects very accurately with a worldwide
capability, which Dave Vesely described earlier. The
algorithms from observing objects go into a huge
computer in Cheyenne Mountain so that we know
exactly where space objects are. It's very important, if
you're going to do space control, to ensure the capa-
bilities of your own systems and deny the other side.
You've got to start with space surveillance. We also,
with space-borne systems and land-borne systems,
perform the mission of attack warning and assess-
ment. That's been a long enduring mission of NORAD.
And by the way, while I'm on NORAD, I'm
pleased to report to the forum that the secretary of
state and the minister of foreign affairs of both nations
(U.S. and Canada) just signed the eighth renewal of
the agreement between two special nations. So we're
good to go for five more years in NORAD.
So attack warning and assessment on North
America remains a very vital function. Of course we
can't do that mission without the support of our com-
ponents in U.S. Space Command.
Turning to our specific Unified Command Plan
missions first, let me describe them for you, and then
I'll give you a short update. This will help in our discus-
sion later, with regard to what are we doing about
them, as Mr. Davis alluded to in his remarks.
The first one is titled "Space Forces Support."
Space Forces Support is the business of placing
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
objects in space and then operating them. It's the
logistics and the administrative activities of those func-
tions. As you know, and we're going to hear from Mr.
Goldin later on, the president has signed a policy that's
been in force for some time that delegates the
reusable business to our colleagues in NASA and
expendable function to the Department of Defense.
That's been delegated to the Air Force, and Dave
Vesely in his role as the commander of 14th Air Force
now performs those functions from the East and West
coasts, specifically Patrick and Vandenberg Air Force
bases, with expendable vehicles.
That does not mean that we don't have overar-
ching interests in reusables and expendables between
the two entities, we certainly do. What it does, though,
is designate who's in charge or who's in the lead for
the expendable and reusable functions. Then once the
satellite is placed into orbit we use the Air Force
Satellite Control Network (AFSCN), a worldwide net-
work to operate those systems. One of the key control
nodes is Falcon Air Force Base, which is about 20
miles due east of here.
The next function is Space Force Enhance-
ment. Space Force Enhancement is commonly
referred to as space support to the warfighter. All
of our speakers have alluded to that eloquently this
morning.
These are the services that we provide to our-
selves in U.S. Space Command and NORAD, as
warfighters and the services that we specifically provide
also to theater commanders.
These services include space-borne warning for
ballistic missile attack — both in theaters and in the
strategic sense. I'll come back to that in a minute with
regard to the extraordinary improvement that we will
realize with Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS). The
next one is the weather service that we do from space.
Weather is extraordinarily important to warfighters for
obvious reasons, but in today's modern battlespace, if
you're going to attack something with precision, usual-
ly it involves infrared systems. When you have mois-
ture, infrared systems have limitations, so it's impor-
tant that warfighters know exactly what the weather is
in a very timely manner.
The next one is the category of space-borne
communications. All of our speakers, particularly Bob,
have talked about space-borne communications, and
I'll come back to that in a second. Space-borne intelli-
gence is accomplished by Jeff and his people, and he
spoke about that. Of course, navigation (read GPS) is
a very important function in today's battlespace to pro-
vide us the precision that we need to perform attack
functions and other navigation capabilities.
So those five things are the services that we
provide under the category of Space Force
Enhancement. I'll talk a little bit more about that later
as we address how we have normalized and opera-
tionalized our capabilities to deliver those capabilities.
The next mission is Space Control. This has to
do with space superiority. There are three functions to
Space Control specifically, including space surveillance,
protection, and negation. It's like air superiority; you
have to know what's in the air space or the space, then
you have to protect your capabilities, and you need the
capabilities to deny the other side. We are working on
technologies to field capabilities that ensure that we
have space control and space superiority.
And the last category is space force application.
This is the business of applying force or capability either
through space, like an ICBM, or from space. Currently,
we do not have forces assigned in that category.
It's like air superiority; you have to know what's
in the air space or the space, then you have
to protect your capabilities, and you need the
capabilities to deny the other side.
So those are the four GCP missions that are
given to us as a unified command. We have two other
missions. The first is to represent the other theater
CINCs and functional CINCs in their requirements
business. This is a very key point that I would like to
make to the forum, because I think it's important to
our colleagues in the civil sector and the commercial
sector. It goes back to our obligation to Mr. Davis and
Maj. Gen. Dickman, in that we must understand our
missions and the capabilities that go with those mis-
sions and then properly articulate them in require-
ments. We have done that in a process called the
Mission Requirement Process. In each of our four mis-
sion areas we have listed the capabilities under each
one. We have looked out 25 years into the future so
that we can look back and merge those with possible
technologies and get out of the boxes Mr. Davis has
mentioned. This is important so that we can influence
where we want to go instead of reacting to where we
may be going, and make the appropriate changes. As
a matter of interest to this forum, we do this through
our chief of plans, who is Army Brig. General Joe
Cosumano. You're all invited to access that process. I
don't have his phone number, but you can find it, and
we welcome your input. We're very proud of this. It
allows us to suspense ourselves, if you will, in a
process that leads to operational concepts that are
pertinent and updated, ultimately leading to an opera-
tional requirement that Bob needs, to be an architect
of any program. He absolutely has to have that and a
Mission Needs Statement. Those are our obligations,
and those are our promises to the secretary and the
architect. I might say that Maj. Gen. Lance Lord, who
is out here somewhere in his Air Force hat, does some
95
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
heavy lifting, if you will, in this category, because he is
the chief of plans of Air Force Space Command.
Lance Lord and Joe Cosumano are partners in this
process because the Air Force contributes a majority
of capabilities, TOA and people in terms of our space
capabilities.
We have suspensed ourselves, in summary, in
these four mission categories with the subcapabilities
to ensure that we have a Mission Needs Statement, an
ops concept, and an Operational Requirements
Document so that we can proceed with our acquisition
programs. While I'm on these requirements docu-
ments, let me assure you again this year, as I did last
year, that I think we understand two very important
points. The first point is that the process needs to be
coordinated with our partners in the commercial sec-
tor. Your voice and your opinions do count. We want
them, we can't field the equipment without them.
This leads to the second major point, if we
don't go through some pain and agony up front to
produce a quality document, we will not successfully
achieve the outcome. I'm talking about affordability,
achievability from a technical perspective, and testabili-
ty. If we write a requirement document that we can't
test, afford, or technically achieve, we need, through a
cooperative process in our relationship with our com-
mercial partners, to go back and review it and change
it, so that we get it right. This must be done before we
give it to Bob, the secretary, and before the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council reviews it and vali-
dates it, as Mr. Davis mentioned in his speech.
It's vital to be able to afford our space control
operations around the world as we operate
our space-borne systems.
That's a summary of representing the CINCs in
these processes that lead to the acquisition programs
and fielded capabilities — and we play very heavily in
that. We take it very seriously, and I think we've made
great progress in the last two years in this regard.
The last major mission area that we're
assigned is to plan for, and prepare to field, operate,
and execute a system for the defense of North
America. I'm talking about a ballistic missile defense
system, referred to as National Missile Defense capa-
bility. Out of respect for my Canadian colleagues, we
refer to it in NORAD and U.S. Space Command as
Ballistic Missile Defense of North America. There's
obviously some debate going on with regard to when
and what this system may specifically be, but it's our
job as warfighters to be prepared to field and operate it
from an operational perspective, and we want to be
ready. As I've mentioned before in speeches and in tes-
timony, we've done a lot of thinking about the opera-
tional concept, and we finalized it in a draft concept of
operation so that we can be ready to go when called
upon. This is significant in that BMDO and Gen. Mai
O'Neill can use this concept of operation as they
model and simulate their technologies that will lead to
a compliant and effective system.
Going back through these missions, let me
remark briefly about several requirements leading to
programs that will improve our capabilities. First, in
support to NORAD, our program to upgrade the capa-
bilities out at Cheyenne Mountain, which is the com-
mand and control node for both organizations, is well
on its way. It's a four-phase program costing over a bil-
lion dollars. We're well into the second phase, and it's
on track. This is vitally needed to get us the capability
to execute our forces appropriately. The mission of
warning will be well-served by the fielding of SBIRS,
and we're looking forward to the initial operational
capability (IOC) of the low system after the turn of the
century. As I earlier mentioned, we are thinking about
Ballistic Missile Defense of North America in our con-
cept of operations document.
With regard to Space Force Enhancement, and
I hope we get into questions about all of these mis-
sions, the evolved expendable launch vehicle program,
as we evolve it into a family of systems, will meet five
mission area requirements. The first is that we need to
safely get into space with expendable vehicles. We
need assured access to space. We need to make sure
that we can get the launch manifest up there and meet
the requirements of all of our customers. We need to
be able to do this responsibly, whether we launch from
an orbit or we do it from the surface of the Earth. We
need to do it in a timely fashion so that we can meet
the needs of our military customers and our commer-
cial and civil customers that share our launch infra-
structure with us. And lastly, and most importantly, the
real reason that we're doing this program is we need
to get up there more cheaply, more inexpensively.
We've articulated this in the requirements document.
We're working with our partners in industry to finalize
it, and 1 think we're well on our way. I should mention,
and Mr. Davis mentioned this in his talk, we need to be
able to operate our systems around the world more
cheaply, and we're looking at doing that. It's vital to be
able to afford our space control operations around the
world as we operate our space-borne systems.
With regard to Space Force Enhancement in
the strategic sense and the theater sense, SBIRS
remains absolutely vital. We've got the technology; we
have a solid requirements program, and we're looking
forward to fielding this system. Not only will it better
serve us in the strategic sense as we execute our
attack warning and assessment mission specifically in
NORAD, but it will really help the theater commanders
see the cooler burning and shorter burning tactical
96
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
missiles around the world. We really need this system.
As all of you know, these missiles continue to prolifer-
ate. It will also give us some technical analysis capabil-
ity of the battlespace as we look at it around the world.
Since the last meeting when we were still finalizing it,
we have consensus of a requirement and that was a
big, big factor in getting this program going.
I'm pleased to report that we have followed the
administration's and Congress' guidance on conver-
gence on our weather satellite programs between the
NOAA and Air Force Space Command, with regard to
how we operate, and become more efficient and thus
save money on our weather satellites. That's well on its
way and will happen in 1998. In the communications
business, all of our speakers alluded to it, our com-
mand is responsible for writing the overarching
requirements document for the Advanced Military
Satellite Communications program. We are about to
finalize that, and in fact this summer Maj. Gen. Bill
Donahue, Adm. Dave Frost, and I will take this to the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council so that the
architect and secretary can get on with their jobs. I
think that's one of the first three major architectures
that Bob Dickman has taken on.
Let me tell you what the user wants. They want
unlimited access and unlimited bandwidth. We're
going to have to balance their desires with what the
commercial sector and what technology can bring, but
we're going to do our best to meet their needs. As
Bob mentioned in his opening remarks, a Global
Broadcast Service is a good example of what the com-
mercial sector has offered. We need to get at it quickly
— smoother, cheaper, faster. We plan on doing that.
The secretary's working on this very hard, and hopeful-
ly this spring we will test and prove this capability in
the Joint Broadcast System that we will deploy in sup-
port of our troops in Bosnia.
To put this commercial sector technology and
the need to leverage this technology in perspective, let
me provide an illustration. Assume you are trying to
get a high resolution photo to a strike pilot on an air-
craft carrier. Using the GHF system to deliver this
photo — as Kathy Laughton was talking about in her
talk — it would take you all night and half the day to
deliver one picture. That's not acceptable. If you use
the high band with the DSCS system that our Army
colleagues operate, it would take you maybe 10 min-
utes to deliver this picture, but nothing else would go
through the "pipe." With GBS, you would be able to
deliver a picture in about five to six seconds. And not
only will you be able to deliver photos, but you will be
able to deliver motion or television and text and all the
things that our warfighters need. It is really important
to people in brigades, on bridges of ships, and even to
the pilots in the cockpit that we get on this system,
and we're committed to doing that.
This is a part of the overall architecture and
satellite communication system that we are writing a
requirement document for. We have gotten the mes-
sage with regard to commercialization and outsourcing
and leveraging what our colleagues in the commercial
sector bring. With regard to intelligence, being able to
deliver intelligence is vitally important and I hope we
can get into discussions on this subject. We'll deflect
all the questions on the GPS policy to Secretary
Davis. We've just had a new policy signed by the pres-
ident, which I think sends a strong message to all of
our civil and commercial partners that we need to
leverage this wonderful capability in a cooperative way,
while not giving up our military capability to deny the
other side and protect our side. And that's what this
policy basically says. We know that technology as evi-
denced by three major scientific reports can lead us
to alternative means to performing military capabilities
of protection and assurance. We can use GPS while
making sure that our commercial and civil partners
can still use the system. So we have this new policy
and that's good.
Before we have our panel members come back
up here, let me now talk a little bit about normalization
and operationalization. I've tried to describe this to
you, and all of our panel members have alluded to it. I
think it's really important that we understand that we
are warfighters and that we translate what we do into
understandable accessible language to our colleague
warfighters around the world through our component
commanders.
We know that technology as evidenced by
three major scientific reports can lead us
to alternative means to performing military
capabilities of protection and assurance.
Dave Vesely mentioned one step and that was
to put our component commanders in the loop
through their command and control nodes so that we
can execute our missions appropriately and effectively
and support those warfighters in the field. Our Space
Warfare Center (SWC) at Falcon AFB continues to
operate and serve not only the Air Force but all of our
services with regard to procedures and doctrine devel-
opment. We recently stood up a test squadron at
Falcon. We still are heavily involved in TENCAP activi-
ties so that we can leverage capabilities and translate
them into usable concepts and capabilities. I'm proud
to let you know — in my Air Force hat — we are going
to integrate a space division into the weapons school
at Nellis Air Force Base. This space division will not
only teach space but will graduate space warriors
along with their colleague airplane drivers and intelli-
gence officers and their weapons controllers. That's a
97
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
powerful message to this forum. The first class, as a
matter of fact, is in session right now. In addition to
the weapons school, we also have orientation courses
and staff officer courses at Falcon AFB and Vanden-
berg AFB. So we have tried to normalize our opera-
tions so that we can effectively operate.
Our three component commanders mentioned
what they do for warfighters in the field, and we in U.S.
Space Command have promulgated a policy that
describes how we organize our space support teams.
Let me just briefly mention this. We do it for the Joint
Force Commanders from the Unified headquarters
here in Colorado Springs. We have space support
teams that support all the Unified CINCs. They plan,
exercise, help them write their integrated war plans,
and then they deploy with them. And that's very effec-
tive, very well-received.
I think people tend to forget that of the over
450 satellites we've launched in our history,
the vast majority of them have been very
small satellites.
Likewise, the three component commanders
have space support teams — each for the respective
theaters, so that we can deploy this knowledge, help,
assistance and support respectively to theaters of oper-
ation. To help us do this, we have animated constella-
tions on a computer screen so that even fighter pilots
can understand what they look like, what their cover-
ages are, and what their schedules are. In my previous
position, that service and that capability was not
offered. We're very proud of that capability. It's called
the Theater Support Operations Cell, or TSOC. We've
also normalized our operation so that we have the
proper training courses, flight manuals, and the proper
focus on commanders' being mission-ready. Not that
we're trying to copy the aviation model, but we're taking
this a step forward, out of the box to make sure that we
can deliver our capabilities in an effective manner.
And last but not least, we have certainly gotten
the messages that I've mentioned before, that we need
to leverage what the commercial sector brings to the
table. I want all of you to know that we have gotten
that message again.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's again a pleasure
and an honor for me to be back and be your modera-
tor today. I would like to now ask our panel members
to come forward and take your places. Thank you very
much.
Q&A
Gen. Ashy: We have a lot of great questions here, and
the first one, I guess, will go to Jeff Grant and
Secretary Davis, if he'd like, and perhaps Bob
Dickman. It has to do with cooperation between DoD
and the NRO with regard to small satellite technology.
The question specifically is, are DoD and NRO really
interested in small satellite technology?
Mr. Grant: I think it's a matter of public record that
Col. Pete Rustan, who was the successful program
manager of the Clementine program, joined the NRO
over a year ago. He runs an organization in the NRO
that is focused on small satellites and their applicability
to the intelligence problems we're confronted with
today. We can't go into detail about the success that
Pete's having, but from my perspective we are very
serious about this activity, we're fully investigating the
applicability of satellites of a variety of sizes to address
the requirements that are coming out of the services
and Gen. Ashy's organization, and I think we have a
rich history of launching small satellites. I think people
tend to forget that of the over 450 satellites we've
launched in our history, the vast majority of them have
been very small satellites.
Gen. Ashy: Bob Dickman, do you want to go next or
the secretary?
Secretary Davis: It's really a two-part question. The
first one is cooperation between NRO and DoD, which
Jeff glossed over a little bit, but it's implicit in the
question. The answer is yes, cooperation is alive and
well and it's working. Specifically with regard to small
satellites, and I'll steal this from Pete Aldrich, who
taught me this long ago, small and large are units of
measure. They're not moral judgments. I think what
we really need to look at and focus on is not whether
something is small or large but what the requirement
is, what kind of technology do we need to satisfy that
requirement, what's the operational utility of it, and
then if the solution ends up being small, so be it. If it
ends up being large or very large, so be it.
One of the things that I think we sometimes
tend not to focus on is, small does not necessarily
mean inexpensive, Jeff. We need to keep that in mind
as well. People usually think of small as being inexpen-
sive, and I think there's a real role at this point, given
how well we can do certain technologies now, and the
inherent smallness of some of our launch vehicles.
Capability to launch small satellites, we need to focus
on that more. Again, I just remind you that small or
large are not moral judgments. I used to be invited in
98
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
my old job to an international small satellite organiza-
tion panel every year, and after I kept saying that small
was not inherently good, they stopped inviting me
back, but we do need to focus on it. I think the short
answer is we do need to do more in that area, and
you're going to see more cooperation between the
NRO and DoD publicly on trying to do that.
Gen. Ashy: Bob Dickman, do you want to make a
comment?
Maj. Gen. Dickman: We aren't trying to drive our
architectures toward or away from small satellites as
Secretary Davis just said. The solutions will lie where
the solutions should be. Certainly large numbers of
proliferated satellites are going to be small by today's
standards and we're looking at that kind of concept as
well.
Gen. Ashy: As the moderator, I'd like to make a short
comment. In addition to what has already been said, I
recently got a clear message from one of the distin-
guished persons sitting in the audience that we really
need to look at the requirement, and what we do has
got to be based on the requirement with regard to res-
olution, etc. This drives the physics of what you're try-
ing to do, whether it's constant steering, or resolution
requirements, and so forth. My summary is, we all
need to take a look at "smaller, better, faster, cheaper,"
but we also need to integrate our requirements very
carefully in this process because it drives what we can
and what we can't do.
The next question is really not a question, it's a
comment and I just want to acknowledge this to the
person who wrote it because it's a very good point,
and I certainly received the message, and perhaps,
Gen. Hill, we can work on this. It has to do with com-
plimenting the contractor display booths next door,
and the suggestion is to next year have our compo-
nents display what they deliver to the field and what
the troops use. We'll take that on and try to make that
happen next year, with your concurrence.
The next question has to do with our space
support teams, and I'm going to let Dave Vesely han-
dle this question as our lead spokesman. The ques-
tion: How do they coordinate specifically their activities
in theaters of operations and will they ever work them-
selves out of a job? I think it's a very good question.
The answer is yes, I hope they will.
Maj. Gen. Vesely: Let me talk to the Air Force side of
this. Our Air Force space support teams belong to a
squadron, the 76th Space Operations Squadron at
Falcon AFB that reports directly to me. They have
teams dedicated to each theater and so, for example,
they have a team that is dedicated to Europe, another
one to CENTCOM and they deal directly with those
theater air component commanders, and we're focus-
ing on the air component commander's problem.
They are in the theater frequently, longer than they'd
like to be, but that's the way the business is. They plan
with them, they integrate space into their war planning,
they actually write the space annex to the war plan,
they train with them when they have training events,
they exercise with them when they have exercise
events, be it a blue flag, green flag, red flag, Ulchi
Focus Lens, Internal Look, I can go on, and they really
become an integral part of that team. They sit side by
side with that air component commander in his air
operations cell.
I have team members today in Vincenza, Italy,
sitting in the CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center)
giving daily advice on space systems and what those
systems can support. They also have an educational
role. They will go educate air component staffs on
what space can provide. They are positioned at Falcon
for a good reason, and that is, they are co-located with
the Space Warfare Center leveraging TENCAP projects
and technologies that are ongoing.
My summary is, we all need to take a look
at "smaller, better, faster, cheaper," but we also
need to integrate our requirements very carefully
in this process because it drives what we
can and what we can't do.
The team members themselves have a very
long and intense training and certification process.
They have to certify to me that they can in fact repre-
sent me in theater — and that's the relationship. They
are my personal representatives to the air component
commander in that theater and they are my tie to him.
They help me know what that theater commander's
facing, what his intention is, what he wants to do, so
that we can help support them. When I stood the
squadron up in December, 1 gave them the direction
that Gen. Ashy gave me, and that is, work yourself out
of a job. Make space such an integral part of military
operations that every commander knows how to do it
and how to exploit it, and we'll get out of the business
and make it a normal, routine part of warfighting.
Gen. Ashy: Kathy, you or Bill want to comment on
that? You're very integral to this process.
Rear Adm. Laughton: Yes sir. Of course, I'm very
proud of our Naval support teams and we are certified
by Gen. Ashy's people. Our process is a little bit differ-
ent in that we start at the point in time that the battle
99
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
group starts its initial work up. And our space support
teams work with the Marines, and with the carrier bat-
tle groups all the way through their pre-deployment
work up into the deployment and post-deployment
phase. We're hand-holding them regardless of what is
going on.
We also work with the battle group comman-
der himself, and every battle group commander on the
East coast comes to see me and goes through an
intensive set of briefings on what our space support
teams can do for him before he ever takes his battle
group to sea. Just as Gen. Vesely mentioned, we are
also working ourselves out of a job, primarily because
we're standing up our operation center so that I can,
through the use of video teleconferencing and other
training mechanisms, hand-hold that battle group
commander all the way through his process, and we
can do it at any level, whether it's a C2W officer work-
ing his problem or the flag officer himself. And we
already have the tools and capabilities to do that. Gen.
Vesely mentioned TSOC. TSOC has become a critical
element to that and, in fact, in 1998 I put together a
POM issue paper to buy TSOCs for every battle group
and every Marine unit, so that they will in fact have that
training tool with them, and will be able to diagnose
whatever questions they have. We feel this will be a
very effective training program for the Naval units.
I hope that we train ourselves out of business
so this culture will infuse itself into our various
theaters throughout the world with trained people
not only as specialists, but as knowledgeable
warfighters.
Gen. Ashy: Bill?
Brig. Gen. Nance: The Army's process is similar to
what's already been mentioned. Bill Hoyman and his
staff spend a lot of time getting into the theaters and
providing information to the theater CINCs and the
lower combat operating activities about the capabilities
of the space support teams. I work with them identify-
ing that capability, and 1 can support their operational
plans. They also participate extensively in theater exer-
cises and warfighting experiments that are conducted
to ensure that that capability is demonstrated to those
folks. Members of the various theater commands are
invited to come to the Army Space Command and
have an opportunity to witness the capability of the
space support teams. Another thing that they're doing
is actively looking at where the Army is going in the
21st century, and the exercises and plans that are being
set up to identify and demonstrate that. The Army
Space Support Teams are providing systems and capa-
bilities that can be demonstrated in those exercises.
Gen. Ashy: I think it's appropriate to ask Jeff Grant to
comment here, because he has a function that is simi-
lar to Space Support teams that is absolutely vital for
delivering a very key service to warfighters. Jeff, would
you like to explain briefly how you all are organized
there? You mentioned it in your talk.
Mr. Grant: I mentioned at the intro, the Operational
Support Office (OSO), an organization formed a few
years ago that has as its focus exercise support. And we
have supported OSO personnel on-site typically between
70 and 80 exercises worldwide, and through a whole
variety of levels of activity, supporting CINCS. Most
recently you will find OSO employees being dispatched
on teams so that the vagaries of how you task and use
intelligence collection systems can be better articulated
to the ultimate user. We have committed to providing
personnel worldwide to support those kinds of efforts.
Gen. Ashy: Very good. Just as a comment from me, it
goes back to operationalization and normalization. I
hope that if I don't do anything else on my watch, I
hope that we contribute toward this notion — a change
in culture with regard to understanding our war time
tasks and how we support others with war time tasks
and missions. As I mentioned, we created this from
U.S. Space Command as a policy. Our component
commands have organized themselves to deliver these
capabilities, and 1 think we're doing it. It has to be a
change in culture. The capabilities have to be assess-
able and understandable. That's what TSOC is all
about. That's what our warfighting schools and brief-
ings are all about. The answer to the question is,
absolutely yes. I hope that we train ourselves out of
business so this culture will infuse itself into our various
theaters throughout the world with trained people not
only as specialists, but as knowledgeable warfighters.
The next question goes, I think, to Gen.
Dickman. The question is, what is the relationship of
the Space Architect office and the NRO?
Gen. Dickman: I think I'll share this answer with Jeff.
We agreed some time ago as we tried to figure out
how to work together, that our commitment would be
to one architecture. The organizational structure to
make that happen may evolve over time, but right now
our commitment is to one architecture. Jeff has
responsibility down into the NRO which does its pro-
gram differently from the DoD. I work the white side,
but we are in the process now of figuring out how to
exchange people and exchange information on virtually
everything we do so that when we do bring a program
forward, to the Joint Space Management Board, it has
100
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
the complete understanding from both Jeff and me,
and the commitment from both organizations that we
can execute the program. Jeff?
Mr. Grant: I can only emphasize the comments that
Gen. Dickman made. We both have bosses who have
told us that we are going to work together very, very
cordially and productively, and so to that end, Bob and
I meet routinely. Our organizations have interactions at
the working level as well as the senior level, and we
meet at the JSMB with programs that we'll be dis-
cussing within the intelligence community and the
defense community. It's a new relationship, it's grow-
ing, its gotten off to a slower start than either one of
us would have liked, but it's clearly a relationship that's
going to stand the test of time.
to defense space policy — is that the same thing as the
national security space policy? — and figure out what
the merits are. Then the wordsmithing takes place, and
back and forth staffing those through the Department
of Defense and intelligence community. Then while that
was going on, there's something called civil space and
something else called commercial space, and so as we
sit here, it's about finished, at least in terms of the
national security side. It is up to the National Security
Council at this point and to the White House — and
hopefully we'll have this thing wrapped up by the end of
the month. It's been dragging on, but we're about
there. And then after that, there's a whole series of poli-
cies that should spin off from that, a DoD space policy
internally, an international cooperation space policy for
Department of Defense, a whole series of others that
will follow.
Gen. Ashy: Secretary Davis, would you like to say a
word about that?
Secretary Davis: I agree with both answers. There are
really two factors we need to keep in mind here. One
is not necessarily any unique organizational relation-
ship. That may in fact be part of the solution to the
process to get to the solution. What we need, as Bob
said, is a single architecture, and that's what we need
to keep focused on. However, having said that, the
actual charter of the Joint Space Management Board
refers to a national security space architect, whatever
that creature happens to look like, and that's the road
we will slowly proceed down. The presumption is at
some point we will end up with a single national secu-
rity space architect. In the long term, it is, as they both
said, it's cooperation, and that's going well. It is my
clear judgment that ultimately we need to be focusing
on the probable solution of a single national security
space architect.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you, and while the secretary has
the floor, another question. You addressed this in your
talk, but the specific question is, when will there be a
new space policy? Since we're kind of on that, how
about addressing that please, sir?
Secretary Davis: A new space policy? Well, we've been
fighting it out across the entire federal government for
about a year to come up with a national space policy.
Yesterday, I read on my mobile E-mail that there should
be a meeting of what we call the deputies, and those
are the deputy cabinet secretaries from each of the
departments that are involved in space, toward the end
of April. We have been going through a whole series of
issues. When you think about national space policy,
you have a mix of it sitting here at the table. We had to
figure out what is intelligence space policy as opposed
Gen. Ashy: Thank you, sir. Staying with Gen. Dickman
and Secretary Davis, the next question has to do with
space architecture and how it fits into the overall for-
mulation of DoD space policy, doctrine and tactics. I
could ask Maj. Gen. Dickman to lead off.
Maj. Gen. Dickman: Sir, let me ask my policy mentor
to do that if I may. We really feed into Bob.
The presumption is at some point we will end
up with a single national security space
architect. In the long term, it is, as they both
said, it's cooperation, and that's going well. It is
my clear judgment that ultimately we need to be
focusing on the probable solution of a single
national security space architect.
Secretary Davis: That's sort of like the old question,
when you're in college and you're worrying about your
exam and the question comes to define the universe
and give 12 examples. I don't know quite how to answer
that question. It's so inter-related. If you could really
draw a sequence and do it right — and of course we
don't live in a perfect world, so we can't — we should go
to the warfighters and the warfighters would say here's
how I want to fight my war in 20 years, 15 years, 10
years. We'd sit down with the technology people and
say, OK, let's go design the following systems and
develop the technology we need to do it. We'd go to the
comptrollers and get a blank check and proceed to
industry and award a lot of contracts and, meanwhile,
the military side of the house would be heavy in opera-
tional exercises to be ready to use these things.
Unfortunately, that's not the world 1 live in,
certainly, and so what you end up with is an iterative
process in terms of a national space policy. I
101
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
addressed that. We have a good example of how the
process has to work, the GPS policy that was
announced two weeks ago tomorrow by the president.
It's an iterative process. When the policy came to us in
the Department of Defense, we voiced our concern
about shutting off things like selective availability, the
wisdom of that, and also the reality that the accuracies
of commercial systems over time will rival or exceed
what we're doing with the augmentation systems. So
we have to take the reality then of, No. 1, the policy,
No. 2, the world we're living in, and No. 3, the possible
technology to counter the problems that may arise.
When you look at the scenario that we may be fighting
in in a given situation, the way the world exists today,
we may have troops deployed in an area that is mixed
with civilian forces, with friendly forces, and with hos-
tile forces. And at the same time you may have aircraft
flying over that area that are civilian aircraft, and you
have to have the technology, and the policies, and the
doctrine, and the operations in place to be able to
continue to receive the signals that you're interested
in. Use those and deny them to your opponents with-
out grounding the airliners in the process.
When you look at the scenario that we may be
fighting in in a given situation, the way the world
exists today, we may have troops deployed in an
area that is mixed with civilian forces, with
friendly forces and with hostile forces.
That's a good case study of how we have to
make all this work. Part of it is to go do architectures
and think about it far enough in advance. In some
cases we have to change the way we operate a system,
and some of those are lessons learned from the down-
ing of our pilot in Bosnia and how we put technologi-
cal and in some cases operational fixes in place there.
And others are things we have to address in the longer
term. That's not, clearly, a precise answer, but it's a
very hard question and if that were easy probably none
of us would need to be employed or on this panel to
try to fix the things that don't go right. Bob, let me
pass it back to you. That's the context, and it's not
something that's a yes or no question or an answer,
unfortunately.
Maj. Gen. Dickman: I think we are going to have to
work through the next year over a very practical dilem-
ma in that regard, and that is that Secretary Davis has
set out as his own goal and has made commitments
to the Congress to deliver a space master plan. What
we have found as we've been through two-thirds of the
first architecture for Military Satellite Communications
(MILSATCOM) is that the dialogue that has to take
place between the architect function and, for example,
102
CI.S. Space Command to really work through the
requirements, is not in the sense of how many two dot
four circuits between two points, but in the vectors of
what is the requirement that will support where we
think the warfighters are going to evolve in 15 years,
which is a much harder question to answer. That
process of working through the requirements and
working the technology is not something that happens
very quickly.
On the other hand, delivering a Space Master
plan in a year will presume some overarching deci-
sions or perhaps solutions with respect to where archi-
tectures are going to head. And so, the person that
Bob has working on that, Army Lt. Col. Sam Gemar, is
closely aligned with my office. 1 have somebody work-
ing with him to try to make sure that our architecture
and what they are doing are consistent, but I think we
have a very interesting challenge to marry my function,
which is moving much more slowly than Mr. Davis!
Secretary Davis: Let me just add one more comment.
The way I would describe it typically is, you need a set
of goals, and Bob alluded to this. We have the
National Security Space Master Plan Task Force work-
ing, but it's almost like driving down the road. You
don't necessarily need to know precisely where you're
going, but you need a general direction. If you want to
head from here to LA., or if you want to head general-
ly west, and if you're heading down the road, if you
have no set of goals, every time you hit an intersection
you have three choices. Do you go straight, do you
turn right, or do you turn left? At any given time, if you
have your set of goals in place, you may mess up one
of those decisions at an intersection, but over time
you'll head in the right direction. That's what we're try-
ing to do at a general policy level. However, on a day
to day basis, it is not necessarily wrong if we take a left
or right turn because that's where the technology is,
that's where the operational doctrines say we are.
That's the world situation we happen to live in, but we
simply need to do a better job of figuring out what our
guide stars are for the long term.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you, gentlemen. The next question
is another great question. It reads like this: The Air
Force provides the majority of the budget for space
systems, so why doesn't the Air Force just fund it all?
I'm going to ask my components to all comment on
what I'm about to say is the answer, and then if they
agree with me, they can say it, and if they don't agree,
they can say that also.
Let me give you somewhat of a lengthy answer
to this. The answer to the question is integral to how
we're organized. You have to look at how we're orga-
nized. We've been through this with the Roles and
Missions Commission. There have been some ups and
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
downs with regard to this, but we have all concluded, I
think, in a consensus manner between the services
and the CINCs and certainly from our perspective in
U.S. Space Command, that we've got it right. When
you consider Goldwater-Nichols and the two options
that the law gives you, you can organize a unified
command in one of two ways; the first option is that
you can do it as functional components, like air, land
and sea. When you think of the operational medium
of space along with the other operational media of air,
land and sea, and by the way, it is recognized in our
joint thinking that way, there are no air, land and sea
portions in space. Space is space. Space is a place.
It's a vacuum. So that leads you to rule out the func-
tional componency, which leads you to the second
option of service components of an Army Space
Command, an Air Force Space Command and a Naval
Space Command. Turns out it looks like a duck and
quacks like a duck and that's the way we have it now.
We have concluded that it not only meets the
intent of Goldwater-Nichols but we've got it right. The
reason that we have it right is that it respects the
respective services, views, and core values and mis-
sions, if you will, with regard to contribution. The Air
Force desires to make a measured contribution and
the Army and the Marine Corps and the Navy insist on
having access to the requirements process and the
operational processes by making some contribution. I
will tell you as feedback from our services and CINCs
that this arrangement is absolutely acceptable to the
services and the CINCs. And so in summary, the Air
Force can make a major contribution. The Army, the
Navy, and the Marine Corps can also make a contribu-
tion. The best part about this, it really ensures that all
three entities can receive space benefits in a one-third,
one-third, one-third fraction — those are not precise —
but it assures access and it assures our customers that
they can get the capabilities that are absolutely vital to
winning in the battle space. That's my answer to the
question. I'd like to let Kathy give her perspectives and
see if she agrees or disagrees. As a component com-
mander, I'm sure she'll agree.
Rear Adm. Laughton: I absolutely agree, because
quite frankly "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And the sys-
tem "ain't broke." We have learned that through inten-
sive study. The real issue and the real discussion that
should go on is not who is funding what, but are we
doing the requirements analysis in a joint fashion, and
how are we doing that. And while we in the Navy don't
have a lot of our Total Obligation Authority going
towards space systems, we are absolutely committed
to playing in the joint world, both with (JSCINCSPACE,
also with the major programs such as SB1RS, and we
have naval officers working those issues day in and day
out alongside their Air Force and Army counterparts.
And indeed, we have made a heavy commitment to
Maj. Gen. Dickman's people so that we can leverage
whatever we are spending in our TOA in joint fashion.
That's really what we have to do.
Gen. Ashy: Bill would you like to make a comment?
Brig. Gen. Nance: Yes sir, I would agree also, and I
would add, and really it's a compliment to the process
of determining requirements, the way that that is being
run, it gives the services the opportunity to come to
the table and identify what the service specific require-
ments are, and also to speak for what they believe to
be the needs for the theater CINCs, and then in a joint
community in a joint forum, have the opportunity to
wrestle with those issues around that and come out
with a program and a process that satisfies all of our
requirements. Thank you, sir.
Gen. Ashy: Dave, you can make a comment, but I
think I can speak for both of us unless you want to
override me.
Maj. Gen. Vesely: I thought you put it superbly well, sir.
Gen. Ashy: Let me just add, there were two other
options with regard to organization that lead to the
answer to the question. It was proposed a year or so
before I got in this job that perhaps air and space were
kind of the same. It was the aerospace and the Air
Force was in charge, which I think was implied in the
question. That absolutely did not sell because the air
and the space are not the same. They're not the same
operational media. And so having a specified service
was not concurred on and I agree with that. I will tell
you that the current Air Force Chief of Staff agrees
with that view.
And the fact that we have an architect and
we have a long range planning process I think
are testament to the way we are effectively
operating.
There is one other option, and that is creating
a new service. I think the consensus is that we ought
not to do that, but certainly I predict that that will be
looked at again in the future. However, I think it's in
our interests now to continue with the unified com-
mand with service components that access to the
requirements process through the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council as promulgated by G.S. Space
Command, working through their service components
to come up with some excellent requirements so that
103
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Bob Dickman and Bob Davis can do their jobs. And
the fact that we have an architect and we have a long
range planning process I think are testament to the
way we are effectively operating. So I hope that
answers the question. Bob Dickman, you can say
something if you want to.
Secretary Davis: How about Bob Davis instead? Every
time a question like that comes up I feel like asking,
well, we may have an Air Force but they're not in
charge of the air. I think the Navy would dispute that.
The Marines and the Army have an awful lot of pilots.
1 even hear debates that you need the best hand-eye
coordination to be a helicopter pilot. At least that's
what the Army guys keep telling me. It's an interesting
question that keeps popping up. The answer is not to
just give everything to the Air Force. The Air Force may
have 90 percent of the people, and 90 percent of the
funding, and even perhaps 90 percent of the expertise,
but they do not have 90 percent of the use of space. If
you had to pick somebody to be in charge of space
and in fact be the space service, we'd have to look
clearly at giving it perhaps to the Army. Mot because
that's where the funding and the historical expertise
have been, but that's where an awful lot of the com-
munications get dumped to. That's where an awful lot
of the data requirement is generated from. That's
probably the wrong answer, too.
While I acknowledge, of course, that we are
the best in the world in space and will remain
so, there are other countries that do have
technological interests and capabilities that they
bring to the table that they are willing to share
in certain instances.
The thrust of the question is interesting. The
presumption is that the Air Force is the multi-user
space acquirer. The Air Force steps up to that. On the
Global Broadcast Service the Air Force volunteered,
and we accepted their generous offer, to fund the
Global Broadcast Service in the out years, which is the
Air Force's responsibility. But they stepped up to the
task. It doesn't, however, mean you take the other 10
percent of the programs away from the other services,
because it has to be imbedded in their thinking. As a
matter of fact, I think it would be a mistake because
one of the goals and challenges that 1 have is to try to
get better imbedded in each of the services education
and training, the way they recruit people, the way they
assign people, the way they develop people to get
space thinking into the very psyche of the service. And
that would be a step in the wrong direction if we sim-
ply said space belongs to the Air Force.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you. In summary, we fight and exe-
cute our military missions as joint, combined com-
mands as supported or supporting. We are organized
in the unified command of U.S. Space Command in
accordance with Goldwater-Nichols with service com-
ponents. All of the services and the CINCs are satisfied
and comfortable with how the services can contribute,
no matter what the portions are. They certainly all
have access to do their missions of organizing training
and equipping, and we can do our job to provide the
services of combat capability either as supported or
supporting. It's been a great debate. I'm sure it will
continue a little bit, but 1 think we've got it right and
I'm pleased to report that the Roles and Missions
Commission agreed with us. Most importantly though,
our customers, the services and the CINCs, are happy.
The next question I think applies to the secretary and
Bob Dickman again. The question has to do with
international activities and arrangements and coopera-
tive efforts leading to agreements in the overall master
plan for space capabilities. I'll let you gentlemen han-
dle this in your order.
Secretary Davis: One of the priorities that I and Dr.
Paul Kaminsky, the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition Technology — my boss — and the secretary
of defense and the director of Central Intelligence
Agency have is better international cooperation in
space for a whole host of reasons. One is, ultimately
it's cheaper. Other countries do bring money to the
table, and in this environment that's important.
Another reason is technology. While I acknowledge, of
course, that we are the best in the world in space and
will remain so, there are other countries that do have
technological interests and capabilities that they bring
to the table that they are willing to share in certain
instances. Another reason is the world we live in today.
It's coalition warfare, it's cooperative warfare. We have
troops in Bosnia with our allies. We had somebody
shot down in Bosnia, as did the French. We need to be
able to communicate. Well, "no" is no longer an
acceptable answer. I think that if we have somebody, a
U.S. soldier in a foxhole, and a French or a German or
British soldier in a foxhole down the road, and they
physically can see each other, 1 don't think any of us
want to be in the situation of trying to explain why they
can't talk to each other.
We need to fix those programs and the way
you fix them is to plan ahead of time and not jury-rig
it. We have had some discussions in the eight months
I've been here with the French, the Germans, the
British, the Canadians, the Australians — I'm probably
leaving somebody out, but that's an awful lot of peo-
ple — in how we better go about cooperating. A lot of
these areas of discussion have focused on communi-
cations, but not solely. We've talked about early warn-
ing. Other countries are interested in that. We've had
104
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
discussions on GPS and imagery proliferation around
the world. The dialogue is very robust and I would
expect we would see more of it, rather than less, in the
future.
The last point, the question that touched on pol-
icy: Since we're about to have a new national space pol-
icy and we have already started trying to write what the
DoD space policy will be, it will be my intent to come up
with DoD international cooperation space policy so the
guidelines are clearly laid out for the entire Department
of Defense about how we go about doing our business.
And the presumption is that cooperation is to our bene-
fit. To the extent that we come to agreements, we would
pass those agreements in terms of cooperation to Bob
as he's planning his architecture, because other coun-
tries have different requirements. We would fold those
requirements in his planning process.
Maj. Gen. Dickman: I think a year ago we had the
process a little bit backwards. We almost had a pro-
gram that we were trying to embark on in the MILSAT-
COM: an International Military Communications
Satellite, and every MILSATCOM architecture that was
brought forward had to be measured against whether
IMMILSAT could fit into it properly. Mow we're working
on what are the architectures, and then what are the
technologies and the opportunities for international
cooperation, And it gives us an awful lot more flexibility
on both sides, both for Secretary Davis to work a num-
ber of countries that we don't have to box out because
they're not part of a specific program and for us to have
a lot more flexibility on the architecture side as well.
Gen. Ashy: Jeff?
Mr. Grant: The Brown Commission Report that was
recently released on looking at the intelligence com-
munity and how it should be organized spoke to grow-
ing international cooperation in the area of space
reconnaissance, so this area will be clearly investigated
in the near term.
Secretary Davis: Let me just add one final comment.
For those of you from industry that are out there, our
intent is not to try to usurp your role. It's really to come
more to government-to-government agreements, set-
ting some ground rules as to what the requirements
are, how we would want to proceed in an acquisition
sense and then to the extent that using communica-
tions systems, as an example, that we come to an
international agreement on common communication
systems within the bounds of the architecture that Bob
Dickman develops. Within the agreements, we would
go out with a request for proposal saying we have
money and a requirement. Here's the document that
we want you to go build something against, but
embedded in that document it may well say, that in
fact, you have to have participation from country X or
country Y and that you must plan to produce some
percentage of whatever the work share is in that coun-
try and a certain percentage in the United States. I then
see our role as simply getting out of the way and letting
industry seek its own level, its own partnership with for-
eign commercial firms in the other country.
Gen. Ashy: I think related to this, just as a comment
from Space Command's perspective — and perhaps the
component commanders would like to comment
briefly — and we've learned this lesson time and time
again, is if we don't think through in this complicated
world that we've evolved into, with regard to how we
share data and communicate data not only amongst
ourselves as we've talked about today, but with our
allied partners, we will have a tough road to plow. I
know I learned this in the theater of operations before
I came to this job, and we see it day in and day out,
whether we're supporting a theater of operations or
we're executing our own mission. We need to think this
thing through, and if we can't share data, or use com-
mon communications systems, space borne or other-
wise with our partners, then we will have a difficult
task. Dave, you or Kathy or Bill want to mention that? I
know you see that day in and day out in your support
to the warfighters.
One of the things that we've learned when
we talk space assets is that we need to really
understand what other nations bring to a table
and how we in fact communicate.
Rear Adm. Laughton: Yes sir. As you know, the Navy
routinely exercises with allies of all nations. In my life I
was very much involved with some of the international
warfighting communications issues, the CCEB of
course which runs out of the joint staff as well as
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, O.K., and CI.S. One
of the things that we've learned when we talk space
assets is that we need to really understand what other
nations bring to a table and how we in fact communi-
cate. The key to that is to sign up to the international
standards and to build them into all of our systems,
both our space systems and our other communica-
tions systems so that in fact we can take advantage of
the inter-operability issues. The other thing that we've
been very proactive on in terms of our own TENCAP
program is refining projects which give us direct bene-
fit to the allied problem, and one of them that we've
worked through very effectively is a thing called radi-
ant mercury, which in effect sanitized a lot of what we do
helping us become very inter- operable with our allies.
105
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Gen. Ashy: Bill or Dave?
Brig. Gen. Nance: Yes sir. 1 concur with the idea that
we need to ensure that we have the ability to share
capabilities with our joint partners in theaters. Whether
it is communications or missile warning or intelligence
information, we need to work to do that. And in doing
that, look at the architecture and protocols that pro-
vide us the opportunity to do that.
Maj. Gen. Vesely: I would just emphasize that my
dealing with those air component commanders around
the world— they can't very well devise a scenario where
they're not in a coalition. It really is something that's
got to happen. And we're doing it day to day.
Gen. Ashy: I think it bears comment here that in a
cooperative way, following on the secretary's remarks,
is that we here at U.S. Space Command are heavily
involved with cooperating with our partners around the
world with shared warning. This will be much improved
when we get a Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS).
From the theater perspective we have created this sys-
tem as executed by our components, and they all
referred to it in their talks on how we share ballistic
missile warning in consonance with the political policy
that is promulgated. So we've built this system, the
Theater Event System, where we can easily and effec-
tively share warning with partners when it's decided
that we should. This gives us, going back to the ques-
tion, stability and deterrence throughout the world and
I, from a personal perspective, think this will become
increasingly important as ballistic missiles proliferate.
Thank you, lady and gentlemen on those responses.
The next one goes to Jeff, 1 believe, and the question
is, what is the risk associated to the downgrading of
NRO-produced data? On the one hand, it is more use-
ful to the warfighters, but are we jeopardizing the very
sources and the methods on which we depend?
Mr. Grant: That's an excellent question — and I may
not be the right person to answer that from a number
of perspectives, but let me take a shot. The systems
that we've operated over the decades, traditionally with
the Cold War mentality and the security systems that
surrounded them, made the data very limited in their
distribution, very limited. As we became more involved
in not just the planning timelines— which have been in
literally weeks, months, years— but started having sys-
tems that were relevant in execution timelines, it
necessitated the data to be available to a broader vari-
ety of folks. We've tried to isolate the data from the
systems that collect the data in terms of how the sys-
tems are controlled and who has access to them, but
indeed as time marches on and we find ourselves with
many of our systems products very widely available,
those delineations become less and less clear. The risk I
think we face is that as more and more folks have
access to more and more of our products then the very
real opportunity to take reasonably small steps to limit
their effectiveness is very possible. Those trades take
place not within the NRO at all. Those trades take place
between the people who use the data. The feedback
that we get from our military users is that the trade is
clearly for broader access to the information that comes
from these systems, albeit at some risk, but those
trades have been made, and that's what we're doing.
The systems that we've operated over the
decades, traditionally the Cold War mentality
and the security systems that surrounded
them, made the data very limited in their
distribution, very limited
Gen. Ashy: Thank you very much, Jeff. The next
question, I believe, goes to the secretary. It is, what is
the idea behind the Joint Space Management Board
and when will it meet for the first time?
Secretary Davis: The idea behind the board is that
there has not been in the past a mechanism to formal-
ly reconcile differences of opinion or fact, on issues
that involve space. Nor has there been a formal mech-
anism to prevent things from diverging and to make
sure positive things happen up front because of a
planning process. So the function of the Joint Space
Management Board is to have all the stake holders —
Gen. Ashy sits on the board, I do, Bob Dickman, the
NRO, and all the services and intelligence organiza-
tions are involved — to be involved up front in the space
process. The board was created officially in December.
The executive committee met on Dec. 20. The issue at
that point was who would be the acquiring organiza-
tion for the Global Broadcast Service. NRO had pro-
posed doing it, the Army was interested to some
degree in doing it, and so was the Air Force. That was
the issue and that was the preliminary meeting.
The executive committee is composed of four
people, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Paul Kaminsky, the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs— at that point it was Adm. Owens — and from
the intelligence community it was George Tenet, the
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Agency; and
under his old job, Keith Hall, as Executive Director for
Community Affairs in the intelligence community. The
first full board meeting will be in early May. We're trying
to get schedules worked. I'm excited about doing this
because for the first time we have a mechanism in
place where we can take issues to them up-front and
106
GLOBAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN SPACE
say, "Here's the direction we want to proceed." And
one of the examples is the National Security Space
Master Plan. We have a team that's starting to work on
it and we want to present to them the timelines, the
direction we want to take. Then our intent would be to
come back with a product for them in early December,
saying, "Here's what we think the National Security
Space Master Plan ought to look like," and get their
approval or changes as necessary. The verdict as to
whether this works and how well it works will be decid-
ed over the next six months.
I think everybody involved in JSMB is excited
about using it. It sets the agenda, as I said before. The
charter for the JSMB actually mentions something
called the National Security Space Architect, and we
have to grapple with that. Keith Hall, in his job as
director of the NRO, and I have been tasked, and we
have our staffs working to come up with the terms of
references, to start looking at NRO programs and how
we perceive their ability to meet Department of
Defense requirements over the next 10 years. So
there's a lot of things happening in the background,
but in early May should be the first meeting.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you, Bob. The next question I think
could be led by Bob Dickman, with perhaps com-
ments from Jeff Grant and the secretary. The question
is, with the recent space industry mergers, are we in
danger of a monopolistic problem for developing
space systems and especially launch systems?
Maj. Gen. Dickman: I think the competitive juices are
flowing as well as ever. The number of competitors is
an awful lot smaller, but my sense, especially in the
launch area, in the small end, for example, is that we
had so many competitors that two-thirds or three-
quarters were doomed to failure because the launch
manifest wasn't going to sustain anything like the
number of companies that were coming forward. I'm
not particularly concerned that we're going to lose
either the industrial base or the competitive nature of
being able to do acquisitions.
Gen. Ashy: Jeff?
Mr. Grant: I probably run hot and cold on the conse-
quences of the merger activity we see taking place
only because I'm concerned about some of the con-
solidation of expertise into essentially just one compa-
ny, in a number of cases. The mitigating factor to that
is the explosion that we're seeing in commercial base
business areas, which are being done by companies
that have a tighter turning radius than some of the
larger companies. And from our perspective in the
NRO, most of our technology work is done at the
unclassified level and so we encourage our folks to do
business with a broad range of industry and are always
willing to take in good ideas, whether they come from
large satellite contractors or small satellite contractors.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you gentlemen. We've just about
run out of time. I'm told we can go over by a few min-
utes and then the panel will be followed by a short
video that Steve Scott will introduce. There are still a
lot of great questions here. The next one has to do
with EELV The question is, why fund an EELV program
at all, and why not just purchase launch services
directly from industry, or the French, for that matter?
Go ahead, Bob Davis.
Secretary Davis: That's a good question. I'd love for
industry to just be willing to volunteer the $2 billion
necessary to do EELV. So that would be my first
choice. I don't see that happening. So the choices
really are in front of us as you look across a range of
launch capabilities we have out there, as Bob Dickman
touched on. The small launch vehicle, 1 think, is a
healthy enough industry and our policy is that we will
not step in and try to develop or subsidize to any great
extent the small launch industry. It's just not necessary
for us to do that. When you look at the range of medi-
um to heavy lift that we need for DoD and NRO pay-
loads, we're slowly being eaten alive by the costs of
launch. That is, the launch rate has gone down, the
costs of launches are going up to unacceptably high
rates, and as you look out beyond the turn of the cen-
tury, some of the heavy lift payloads, given the launch
rate, could potentially cost us three-quarters or a bil-
lion dollars apiece to launch, and that's unacceptable.
And from our perspective in the NRO, most
of our technology work is done at the
unclassified level and so we encourage our
folks to do business with industry and are
always willing to take in good ideas, whether
they come from large satellite contractors
or small satellite contractors.
So what's the solution, since industry, and
rightly so, is not going to step up to solve our problem
(although they are to some extent, trying with
Lockheed Martin and the Atlas development and
McDonnell Douglas, with their Delta developments, to
make their medium capabilities commercially viable)
as a result of one of Tom Moorman's efforts, the
famous Moorman option 2, the $2 billion option, is to
go do EELV I've sat in on half a dozen briefings by
vendors and people in the Department of Defense in
the last month, and I think the program is going well.
107
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
It will pay for itself very quickly, in terms of
reducing costs. Given the potential, from a briefing
that I saw yesterday, to reduce what is now costing us
a lot on the Titan 4, is great. We could be launching
things for a third or a quarter of the cost very quickly,
once we get EELV up there. So it's being cost driven—
we are not reinventing the wheel. These are technolo-
gies that we know how to do.
The next question usually pops up: Why do we
want to do EELV when the salvation of all humankind
is the RLV program? And while our salvation may in
fact be RLV eventually, that's a fight for a different day.
EELV will pay for itself before the RLV is ever realized. If
NASA is successful in what they're doing, and 1 cer-
tainly hope that they are, EELV will have paid for itself.
And then there are intangibles that you can't really
price out, in terms of the speed with which you can
launch. You can launch on demand.
I think we're all aware of some of the lengthy
static displays of Titan 4 vehicles. It's a good vehicle,
but it just takes too long to get some of these things
launched. One of the most exciting outcomes of EELV,
1 think, will be our capability to simply get things in
orbit, reasonably quickly.
Finally the question is, why don't we just buy
launch services? It's a good question, and I have been
asking the same question and frankly don't get anyone
saying that that is not something that we should be
aggressively pursuing as an option. I would think that
the point that we would insert that into the EELV com-
petition is still probably two years down the road, when
we would go to the EMD selection process in the
acquisition cycle and say in fact we do want to buy a
launch service. That is a leading option at the moment.
We're looking at it. It may be the right solution.
One of the most exciting outcomes of EELV,
I think, will be our capability to simply get things
in orbit, reasonably quickly.
Gen. Ashy: Bob Dickman, do you want to say anything?
Maj. Gen. Dickman: I would reiterate what Secretary
Davis just said. I think the DoD money, the govern-
ment money, was a nudge that industry needed to do
some things that they'd been looking at for a long
time, but for whatever reason were unable to push
themselves over the brink. The cryogenic upper stage
for Delta, the integration between Atlas and Titan are
clearly things that didn't come out of the EELV, but with-
out an EELV they weren't happening. I think an area
where EELV may be decisive and what we're going to
struggle with very hard over the next few years is what
happens at the heavy end. The commercial industry will
sustain itself only to the point where a vehicle can carry
the largest economically feasible communications satel-
lite. That would mean if heavy is defined as anything
over that, the Titan IV class, we will be the only cus-
tomer for that, and there's a question whether we can
afford that or whether that would force us to de-opti-
mize an awful lot of satellites to be on a class vehicle
that isn't consistent with the physics of the satellite.
The other alternative to that is whether or not a
heavy vehicle in our country can dual-manifest pay-
load. We don't do that today. Ariane does it all the
time. EELV may provide some of the impetus and
some of the ability to spend some money looking at
how we can make an economically viable commercial
variant of an EELV so that those costs get amortized
across the bigger spread.
Gen. Ashy: Thank you, Bob. I would also like to com-
ment perhaps slightly in deference to previous com-
ments here. I think the question is a very important
question. We need to remember what the mission is.
We often say, in U.S. Space Command, when we're
reviewing something, "It's the mission, stupid." We
need to keep focused on the mission. This is an
assigned mission. As I commented, and I think the
secretary commented earlier in his remarks, we all
respect the notion that we need to continually review
the mission. But assuming that the mission is valid,
and it's an integral part of space force support with
regard to assured military access to space, that's what
EELV is all about.
It's an expendable vehicle that will assure our
access as a cheaper way to space. That's the purpose
and the objective of the program. This leads us to the
question of ownership, not who does it and how we do
it specifically. The ownership of this mission will be a
military mission. That's delegated from DoD to the
U.S. Air Force and that's why Dave Vesely coordinates
all that and executes it. However, we have all gotten
the message that we need to do this better, smoother,
faster, cheaper. So we can out-source, privatize, and
contract out. We are all for that, and 1 would argue
that we do that now. It's not blue suiters launching
these expendable vehicles, and blue suiters won't do it
in the future. Contractors do. Our commercial partners
do, as we have outsourced this owned, controlled mis-
sion. And I predict that this will not only stay valid, but
it will grow in the future. Ladies and gentlemen, you've
been a great audience, we've had a great panel. We've
run out of time here and I've gone over the time allot-
ted and I apologize to the Foundation so that will have
to be our last question. Would you join me in thanking
a very great panel?
108
NASA AND SPACE: ENHANCING LIFE ON EARTH
Symposium Luncheon Presentation-
NASA and Space: Enhancing Life on Earth
Introduction: General James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.) Featured
Chairman of the Board Speaker:
United States Space Foundation
The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin
NASA Administrator
Gen. Hill: This is a person who needs no introduc-
tion. And in most cases then they'll go ahead and
introduce the speaker and say what they have to say.
I'm not going to do that today because I am certain
that there is not a single person in this room who does
not know who Dan Goldin is. If you've had anything to
do with space, or have been involved with NASA or
industry or any of these activities that we talk about in
this symposium and are here to take care of in this
symposium, you know Dan Goldin.
I will tell you a couple of things about Dan,
though, that you may not know. He was appointed the
administrator of NASA in 1992 after 30 years in the
aerospace industry. Many of you would not realize that
he was 30 years in the industry before going to Wash-
ington. He doesn't look like he's that old. I see him
quite often and he looks like a very young man so it is
hard to tell how he could have been there 30 years,
but he has. Before the appointment he served as vice
president and general manger of the TRW Space &
Technology group in Redondo Beach, California, and
served 25 years with TRW managing the development
of production of advance spacecraft, technologies, and
space science instruments. He has led NASA through
its most challenging years and he has brought new
energy and strategy and efficiency to NASA. Please
welcome Dan Goldin.
Mr. Goldin: I am thrilled to be here. I want to talk
today about the subject on this program, "Enhancing
Life on Earth." Whenever people think of NASA and
think of enhancing life on Earth, the first thing that
comes up is Tang and Velcro.
Well, let me dispel the fantasies about that.
NASA did not invent Tang and we did not invent
Velcro. We used them. It helped do what we do, but
we touch people in unbelievable ways. And this came
home to me during these last two weeks I've been
traveling. The members have been on recess, and I
have been visiting a number of their districts to interact
with the children. I spent a good part of each day for
the last few weeks talking to elementary, middle
school, high school, and college students. And if any-
one thinks there isn't excitement in America about the
future, try it for a few weeks; you'll come alive. It's
unbelievable.
But there is one experience that struck me very
deeply. I went to an elementary school in Sydney,
Maine, to talk to the students, and I walked into the
school with all the suits. There were about five suits
walking into the school, and the kids said to us, "We
don't want you to talk to us, we want to talk to you."
Then for an hour they put on a computer display that
was mind-boggling. These children, third and fourth
graders, took LANDSAT images, SPOT images, and
they were doing environmental and agricultural analy-
ses to help the local community.
A little third grader stood up and spoke with
such poise and confidence. He had his classmates
project computer images on the screen and would
change the images. He told us how he took this big
picture of Maine and narrowed it down to find a bog
and to figure out where plowed fields were. That's how
we touch America — not with Tang and Velcro and gim-
micks. It's very, very important to understand that,
because many people say, "Well in order to justify this
space program, tell us what you're going to do for
America today," but that's not what we're about.
What I tell people is that NASA's not about
tech-transfer. If you want a tech-transfer organization,
go to private industry; don't come to the federal gov-
ernment. Don't buy technology by the yard. NASA is
about bold and noble tasks to open the air and space
frontier. It's about research that goes 10, 20, 30 years
out, and it's about the possibility of payoff that we
don't even know about. We can't go testify and say,
"Well, if you give us money for the Space Station,
we're going to cure cancer." That would be inappropri-
ate. Yet, there is this desire to survive in the near term.
American corporations are under unbelievable stress.
They can't have a research and development program
that goes out much beyond three to five years for
product development. They can't go back to their
shareholders and carry investments on the books for
20 years out. So people say, "Well, let's privatize space!
Companies will go invest, and in 30 years they'll get
money back from the moon." That's unrealistic. But
what we will do is answer fundamental questions that
the human species has worried about for centuries
and millennia. In doing so, we will perform basic
research and technology and then we can find the
payoff. Let me give you an example, just one example
of what I'm talking about.
109
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
One need only pick up almost any newspaper
in America or turn on to any major broadcast or cable
news station, and you'll hear all about the cosmos with
the images from the Hubble Space Telescope. In the
last year, we have actually photographed a planet
around a star within 30 or 40 light years from Earth,
and that planet is in the life zone. That's important
news that makes front page coverage. With the
Hubble, we've gotten images of galaxies that we
believe go out to the very beginning of existence.
That's front page news. So we don't have to sell the
American public short and say they need Tang and
Velcro. They need intellectual nourishment, and they
understand the impact of research. But while we have
the Hubble Space Telescope, let me tell you what hap-
pened. When you take pictures of galaxies and stars,
you're trying to pick out very faint light from very, very
high background noise. In the process of doing that,
you need very advanced digital image processing.
But the fundamental issue is, as a nation,
we have got to go to the outer boundaries and
we cannot apologize for our space program
by talking about Tang and Velcro. We don't have
to apologize because we are exploring the
unknown. We don't have to apologize because
we're doing research that won't have payoffs
for 10 or 20 years.
You need very advanced focal planes. Well, the
medical community came to us and said, "You know,
the images you take with the Hubble look exactly like
mammograms, and what we want to do is find micro-
calcifications in women before they get very big." The
problem that the medical community has now is, when
women go in for a mammogram, with the resolution
they now have, growths must be pretty big to detect. If
they have to do a biopsy, it's thousands of dollars and
very, very painful. We transferred the technology from
the Hubble to the medical community, and small com-
panies and big companies are getting in on it. We
believe the resolution is going to go way up for the
mammogram, and because we could so precisely
locate the microcalcification, they are using a needle
instead of a biopsy to determine whether the women
have cancer.
When the Hubble Space Telescope was being
sold to Congress, we couldn't stand up and say, "Hey,
fund the Hubble and get a better mammogram." But
the fundamental issue is, as a nation, we have got to
go to the outer boundaries and we cannot apologize
for our space program by talking about Tang and
Velcro. We don't have to apologize because we are
exploring the unknown. We don't have to apologize
because we're doing research that won't have payoffs
no
for 10 or 20 years. All one need do is ask almost any
American, "Do you think we're going to have a robust
country in the year 2020?" And almost everyone will
say, "Of course. Yeah, we got problems now but we'll
work 'em out." If we're going to have a robust country
in 2020, it is legitimate that this nation expend a very
small fraction of its resources on things that go out
that far. So when I talk about tech-transfer and when I
talk about R&D, I'm not talking about Tang and Velcro.
I am talking about exploring the unknown.
To explore the unknown, we had to restructure
NASA. If you look at NASA, we were organized about
constituencies. When I got to NASA, I asked our
employees, "Who are your customers?" And with all
due respect, they said, "Rockwell, TRW, and
McDonnell Douglas." And I said, "You have got to be
kidding." They said, "The scientists and the universi-
ties." I said, "This is nonsense. The customers for
NASA are the American people, the taxpayers who pay
for the program, not the NASA scientists and engi-
neers, but the people who need the benefits from this
program decades out." As a result, we had the shuttle.
The shuttle cost was at over $4.5 billion a year and
was going to go up to five or six billion a year. And
everyone — and again I don't want to be demeaning of
the intent — everyone was happy making good profits
on the shuttle. But we never asked the question: Do
we have too many people on the shuttle and are we
making the shuttle safer? That's the object.
Then we took a look in the science area. I was
told then, you must have 19 percent of the budget
devoted to space science, that we have to have $400
million a year for space physics and so much for astro-
physics and so much for planetary science. Why?
Because if we don't fund space physics at $400 million
a year, they won't have continuity of funding in the uni-
versities. That's poppycock! That's not what our role is;
our role is to have free flowing, peer reviewed research
and let scientist go after scientist to get the very best
idea in front of the public.
So the problem was, instead of asking funda-
mental questions that were multi-disciplinary, that the
American public could understand, we had constituen-
cies in different areas. Good people, a system that was
set up that didn't change with the times. So, we devel-
oped the strategic management system and a strategic
plan. It's available. We've made copies available to
Congress, every NASA employee has one. Hopefully
our contractors have them. We've worked with different
societies; Arnauld Nicogossian and the American
Astronautical Society have worked with us. We tried to
talk to our customers across the country in town hall
meetings. What we came to was a conclusion that we
have to answer basic questions, and let me list them
for you here:
• Where did galaxies, stars, and planetary bod-
NASA AND SPACE: ENHANCING LIFE ON EARTH
ies come from and how did they evolve and interact?
How does this knowledge enhance the quality of life
on planet Earth?
• Are there places that had an environment,
have an environment, or might have an environment
hospitable to life of any form — even single cell life — or
to human commerce?
• Is life of any form unique to planet Earth?
• What technologies must be developed to
open the air and space frontier to answer these basic
questions?
That is the direction that we are going in at
NASA. When you ask these questions and talk about it
(I just talked to about 15 different schools, and thou-
sands of people), everyone understands those ques-
tions, but they didn't understand $400 million to space
physics and so many dollars to planetary science and
so many dollars to a shuttle. So, I think we are now
beginning to connect with the American public. Life is
not just about survival; it's about hopes and dreams,
it's a search for the understanding of life. It's looking
up at the galaxies at night and wondering, are we
alone? Where does it end?
We also need intellectual nourishment; that's
necessary to fuel future endeavors. Let me give you a
few examples. We have to understand the laws of
physics, about the generation and transformation of
energy and the generation and transformation of mat-
ter. If you look up at the heavens, there is a lot of
knowledge to be gained. We talked about building a
super conducting super collider in the deserts of Texas,
and I don't want to say that that's good or bad. I think
that it was a very noble feat, but it didn't get funded. If
you take a look out at the heavens, there are process-
es that take place around heavenly bodies that we
believe are 10 million times more energetic than any-
thing we could have generated in that super conduct-
ing super collider. Clearly, we couldn't have made the
microscopic measurements locally for transformation.
But we don't understand these phenomena, and if we
want to rewrite physics textbooks, we must look up at
the heavens across a variety of spectrums.
We don't understand a lot about the formation
of matter. We know and we believe that you can, in a
chemical manner, generate the basic proteins that are
the building blocks of life, some of the amino acids.
But then a very funny process takes place when you
build up from these building blocks into a living cell.
We have a sense that comets and asteroids have these
building block proteins, but what happened to cause
life to take place? We just don't understand. We believe
Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and after
some hundreds of millions of years, single-cell life
formed on Earth. We had single-cell life on Earth until
about 500 million years ago, and then in a 10-million-
year period, we theorized something magical hap-
pened, and we basically went from single-cell plant
and animal life into very complex life form. We don't
understand. But if we are ever to effectively combat
disease as we know it today, we need an understand-
ing of that, and for that we have to look out at the
heavens, at the stars, at the planets, and the planetary
bodies. Doing this will allow us to rewrite physics text-
books, biology textbooks, medical textbooks and
chemistry textbooks. It is fundamental, and you don't
have to justify to the American public day by day by
day by day. We have to give you near-term benefits.
America has to look over the horizon. That's what we
are all about. We do things to understand our basic
planet. How do the laws of nature interact so that
when you look at the oceans, the atmosphere, and the
land, you can understand that interaction? And is it
possible to understand the naturally occurring forces
and the human-occurring forces on our planet so we
can create predictive environmental and long-term
climactic models?
Life is not just about survival; it's about hopes
and dreams, it's a search for the understanding
of life. It's looking up at the galaxies at night
and wondering, are we alone?
This is an unbelievable task, and our present
computers are probably one million to one billion
times too slow to do this. Our algorithms are inca-
pable of doing it right now, but over a 15-year period
we believe we are going to make it happen. Let me
give you an example of one of the issues we are work-
ing on right now — the El Nino condition. For some
reason, periodically, there is a hot spot in the center of
the Pacific Ocean. As this hot spot starts moving, there
is a wave that moves across the Pacific Ocean toward
the west coast of the United States. How do we know?
We built the Topex Poseidon spacecraft and we mea-
sured the surface of the sea level. We measured it in
centimeters, and we saw this heat wave traveling. So
you say, "Well, how does that relate to life in America
or around the world?" Last year Los Angeles got 50
inches of rain, when it should have normally gotten 12.
And you go out to the Midwest and the farmers were
dying on the vine, and in other places they had floods.
If you could predict that a number of years in advance,
think of the impact we will have on our society. You
don't need Tang and Velcro to calculate what would
happen to our society if we could predict the long-term
climate — an accurate Farmers Almanac, if you wish.
I was recently testifying before the Senate, and
Sen. Stevens of Alaska came in. I thought he was
going to beat me up over 10 different subjects and he
ill
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
surprised me. He said, "Dan, why aren't we moving
faster on Mission to Planet Earth?" And I said, "Sir, we
are moving as fast as we can." And he said, "Do you
realize the insurance industry of America is unbeliev-
ably concerned that they don't know the impact of
what's happening to our environment on their future
liens against the insurance policies they have. They
worry about whether the sea level is going to rise a
foot." Think of the impact of what would happen if the
sea level rose a foot. Mow, I'm not being a hysterical
environmentalist, but we're talking about trillions of
dollars worth of impact. It could devastate the econo-
my of this country. We at NASA will resolve this prob-
lem. We'll do it for the lowest possible cost, but we will
resolve this issue. That's not Tang and that's not
Velcro.
Another major issue coming down the pike is
information systems. Information systems are going to
change everybody's life but people don't know it yet. 1
was talking to farmers and people in rural areas of
Montana. They have a low-value-added agricultural for-
est products, mineral-based industry that is going to
change radically. In 1860, 53 percent of Americans
earned their living in agriculture. Just two days ago,
USA Today reported that 1.9 percent of Americans
earn their living in agriculture. But those who work in
agriculture are going to be touched by information
systems.
Information systems are going to change
everybody's life but people don't know it yet.
Let me give you another statistic. A few years
ago 3 percent of Americans earned their living in infor-
mation intensive technologies. Predictions say within
30 or 40 years, 50 percent of Americans are going to
earn their living in information-intensive technologies.
It is going to change everything about everything on
this planet. In 1984, 80 percent of a computer was
built on a production line, 20 percent was information
systems. In 1990, 20 percent of a computer was built
on a production line, 80 percent information systems.
Today, less than 10 percent is hardware. So, these pro-
duction line jobs are vaporizing and everyone is won-
dering, "What's happening to me?" No one is bad, but
technology is marching on, and if we don't educate
and we don't prepare for this revolution, it isn't going
to happen.
We are working with a number of farm imple-
ment companies to put robots in their tractors with
signals from a Global Positioning System and from our
remote-sensing spacecraft. I hope they will be mostly
commercial so farmers could farm by the yard. We're
doing it right now, today. So think about a farmer who
has his family farm, but he is not computer literate and
1 12
can't get on the Internet. He's not going to be able to
manage that farm and get the productivity that he
needs. So it's here, and it's coming. We asked an
investment banking company to do a study for us.
They believe there will be a $10-to-$20 billion-a-year
industry in remote sensing. And that budget in remote
sensing is a meager budget of a little over a billion a
year. Rather than industry coming to NASA and look-
ing upon Mission to Planet Earth as a place to gain
profits, we really need to work in a partnership with
industry to transfer technology, so industry takes the
job over from NASA and we solve all these other issues
I talked about. The finances and profits are going to
be in the information technologies not just in the
spacecraft area.
Aeronautics — it is a $100-billion-a-year indus-
try. For 25 years, the long-haul jet transport business
in America dropped one point per year. We have lost
25 percent market share. In the next 15 years there will
be about $1 trillion worth of business in long-haul jet
transports, not supersonic. Supersonic is another
quarter of a trillion dollars, and hopefully, we'll work
that as well. To turn this around, you have to have the
most superior technology in the world, the best manu-
facturing procedures at the lowest cost, and there are
things that no one aeronautics company could do. It's
not corporate pork when NASA develops new design
tools that enable companies to cut their cycle time
down by a factor of two. That's what we're about. It's
not Tang and Velcro.
Communications — 1 just picked up the Mew
York Times, and read an article about a petroleum
exploration company that was all excited about a new
technique they had that was information intensive at
the site, but there was no way of getting the data out.
We made the Advanced Communication Technology
Satellite available to them and they're using this at 620
megabytes of data that you can get in pulses. They are
using this to find new sources of oil. If you go back
about six or seven years, before we launched the
Advanced Communication Technology Satellite, the
foreseers of doom and gloom said, "NASA just wasted
a half billion dollars on technology that industry should
have been working on." But industry didn't have the
money to work KA band at that time. And now
America has a leadership role in KA band technology
because we didn't listen to all the people who knew
with certainty what couldn't be done, and we plowed
ahead. We are now in the process of signing an agree-
ment with the American communications industry —
not just people in space communications, but terrestri-
al communications. So NASA is going to work in a
team approach with the communications industry,
such that we will have the same relationship as with
the aeronautics industry. It is very exciting, and guess
what they told me was the No. 1 priority for NASA?
They said they are worried that with a seamless global
NASA AND SPACE: ENHANCING LIFE ON EARTH
information system, that they would not be competi-
tive because space launch was much too expensive.
They said they cannot live with $10,000 a pound.
Their spacecraft had come down in cost by a factor
of five and soon would be coming down a factor of 10,
and launch has consistently been $10,000 a pound.
Here's the greatest country in the world and we
haven't developed a new rocket engine in 25 years. We
spend billions of dollars on propulsion. Again, I don't
want to be critical of the people, but the system is sick.
Billions of dollars in government expenditures, signifi-
cant profits, and NASA, the US. government, and
industry did not develop a new rocket engine in 25
years. We're willing to settle for second-rate perfor-
mance out of our launch vehicles. The payload mass
fraction of American launch vehicles today is about 2
percent. Europe and Japan have about 3 percent.
There are technologies that could get us to 10 per-
cent, but we're so focused on a program that should
be 10, 20, 30 years out, that all we want to do is push
the near term. We're so afraid of failure that we're
afraid to fly things because they may fail. We're going
to change that. I'll talk about that in a minute.
I could go on and on, industry after industry,
but my point is, NASA is more than Tang and Velcro.
We are going to answer fundamental questions, and in
answering these fundamental questions we are going
to be forced to develop technologies that no one even
thought about.
One of our goals is to send an armada of
robotic spacecraft to every important planetary body
within our solar system over the next 15 years. In
1992, the average cost of a scientific spacecraft at
NASA was $600 million. It took on average eight years
to develop. In 1992 we had only two planetary space-
craft scheduled for the rest of the decade. Each of
these spacecraft was in excess of a billion dollars. But
we just started 10 programs. I would like to just read
these out loud and give you a little sense about it. By
the way, the scientific community and many in the
engineering community said, "You must have big
spacecraft, because without big spacecraft you can't
do good science." Well, in October of 1993, we started
the NEAR spacecraft and within 27 months it was
launched. It is on its way to an asteroid three years
out. This fall we're going to launch a lander that is
going to go to Mars. We're going to launch an orbiter
that goes to Mars; it will get there in July. We're going
to launch a lander in '98 and an orbiter in '98. We're
going to launch a microprobe in '99 that's going to be
a spacecraft about the size of my fist, with a seismic
station that's going to go on to Mars. We're launching
a lunar prospector next year to see if there is water on
the moon. Clementine gave us some sense that there
might be some water in the southern craters on the
moon. Lunar Prospector is going to find if there is
water there. We're then going to launch a spacecraft
called Stardust. It's going to rendezvous with a comet,
go into the comet's tail, and collect some of the
comet's dust. Perhaps we'll get some building blocks
of proteins and put it in one sample container. Then it
is going to fly and collect some intergalactic dust, put
it in a second sample container, and return it to Earth
for analysis. I see a grinning fellow here who is building
it. And it happens to be a small company.
We have Deep Space 1; we're going to put in
an electric propulsion system. We spent 35 years
developing electric propulsion. We're going to fly it in a
year or two and we are going to prove that electric
propulsion works so we'll be able to enhance our plan-
etary missions. We have Deep Space 3, which will be
launched in 1999. We're going to put interferometers
into space and, based upon knowledge on the ground,
we're going to test out these interferometers to estab-
lish that we understand technology so that we could
be able to image planets within 100 light years of
Earth, if they exist, that are Earth size. But let me tell
you how difficult this problem is. In order to make
these measurements, we're going to have to build light
buckets that are meters in diameter, we'll have to sepa-
rate these light buckets by kilometers, and we'll have
to know their position to within a trillionth of a meter.
So with the metrology techniques we are going
to develop for programs like Deep Space 3,
we are going to be working cooperatively with
the lithography industry to help it develop
leap-frog changes in fueling the information
age for America.
We'll have to physically place them to a fraction of an
inch, and we're going to have to locate them in an
orbit somewhere out by Jupiter. The reason we go out
to Jupiter is, we have this dust in our atmosphere, and
when the sunlight reflects off it you get what's called
zodiacal light that saturates the sensors. That's a
tough problem. And when you take a look at the sur-
face finishes that we have to put on these telescopes,
the surface finish will have to be 10 times better than
anything we've had. But isn't it interesting, that the lith-
ography industry is just panting to work with us
because we are beginning to saturate out in terms of
building next-generation semiconductors. So with the
metrology techniques we are going to develop for pro-
grams like Deep Space 3, we are going to be working
cooperatively with the lithography industry to help it
develop leap-frog changes in fueling the information
age for America.
Now, there are 10 spacecraft here; the sum
total of those 10 spacecraft is $1.3 billion. We started
the first one in October '93, that is when we began the
design. The last one is going to be launched in 1999.
113
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
So in six years we're going to launch 10 spacecraft.
The average cost is $130 million.
Now, that's not enough. Ed Stone [director of
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory] has taken the challenge
to cut the cycle time down to a year and a half for
spacecraft and to get us well into the tens and millions
of dollars, because the vision we have is not a dozen
spacecraft a year — but we want to launch dozens of
spacecraft a year. 1 submit, I went to the rendezvous
of Galileo with Jupiter and at that time, 1 was beat up
because we're stopping the big programs at NASA. I
submit that that's one heck of a lot of science. Then 1
asked the wonderful people out at JPL to do a calcula-
tion: Using today's technology, how much would it
cost to build Galileo? One-fifth the price. Using technol-
ogy from the new millennium program in the year
2000, one-tenth the price. My challenge is— don't mea-
sure dollars going in to measure the vitality of NASA,
measure the science that is coming out. And 1 chal-
lenge everyone in the room to throw off your old habits
and say, if it has to be big it doesn't have to be heavy.
If it has to be big, it doesn't have to be expensive.
So here's a second challenge I pose to the
astrophysical community. I said I want a Hubble Space
Telescope that's one-thirtieth the weight and one-thirti-
eth the cost. They held a workshop down at NASA
Goddard, and are actually talking about it. When we
built the Hubble, we built it exactly like you build a
telescope on the ground. We took glass and we
ground the glass and we polished the glass and we
ground the glass and then we set up a metering truss
to get the primary and secondary mirrors together and
we ended up with a 25,000 pound system that only
cost $2 billion and took a decade to develop. Then we
launched it into orbit, and we were a little myopic. A
little astigmatism didn't work too well. So we had to
spend a half billion dollars to go fix the Hubble. This is
a day and age when we understand adaptive control
systems. This is a day and age when we understand
new materials.
My challenge is— don't measure dollars going
in to measure the vitality of NASA, measure
the science that is coming out.
So here is the challenge, and we have all the
people in the room that know how to do this, use laser
beams for stiffness and not materials for stiffness.
Think about a membrane that's adaptively controlled
so you never have to check it out on the ground, and
you launch it into space, you deploy the thing, and
have just a floppy structure with a membrane for the
collector, and this country could have the most unbe-
lievable telescopes for a variety of applications. But it's
simple, and part of the problem we had at NASA is we
114
got so enamored in having organic programs, pro-
grams that took on a life of their own, that saving the
programs was more important than answering funda-
mental questions. So organic programs are out and
technology is in, and what we're doing is, we have a
technology program that's baseline. We're going to
have test launches through the new millennium pro-
gram, so we'll design a little, build a little, test a little,
design a little, build a little, test a little.
We now have renaissance in flight and our
aeronautics program where we are building X-planes.
We just rolled out an X-plane at McDonnell Douglas-
two aircraft, piloted from the ground, $17 million —
design, development, fabrication, and initial opera-
tions, 18 feet long, wing span 10 feet, no tail. Now,
that's one heck of a plane for $17 million. So I chal-
lenge everyone: Get rid of your old habits, you don't
need big bucks.
The problem we have, there is such resistance,
and people hold on so long that they — and again I
value my relationship with members of Congress — but
every time a corporation goes to the U.S. Congress to
protect jobs and dollars in their district, you take life
out of the nation's space program, and you don't
answer fundamental questions. And, I ask you to go
home and search your soul tonight and look in the
mirror and see if maybe, maybe one or two people in
this room do this. We're going to fight to the end, door
to door and street to street. We are not going to
destroy America's space program to protect jobs.
We're going to generate a future for this country, and
that's the direction we are going in.
Now, 1 am very proud of the relationship that
NASA has with our contractors and our scientists. And
frustrated as I am, 1 am also happy. I'll give you a sta-
tistic. The General Accounting Office did a study of
NASA in 1992, and the average cost growth on our
programs was 77 percent. We were sinning real bad,
along with the Congress and the administration,
because we kept changing things, and we would never
identify the requirements in the beginning. We are now
having a 5 percent underrun, after we descoped all the
programs and in almost all cases held the schedules.
The only place we're missing schedules is where we had
problems with a new series of launch vehicles, and we
fell behind on a few, but other than that, schedules have
either held constant or been accelerated. That is one
heck of a record for American industry, American uni-
versities, and a government agency. We have Centers of
Excellence at NASA. This is a very tough job.
The president asked us to cut our budget with-
out canceling programs, and I am proud to say in the
last few years we have just slashed the budget; we took
it out of overhead and bureaucracy, and we didn't cut
programs. But what have we done? We found that at
each NASA center, good people, government employ-
NASA AND SPACE: ENHANCING LIFE ON EARTH
ees had marketing teams that would stroll the halls of
headquarters looking to start hot dog stands, scientif-
ic hot dog stands, and technology hot dog stands.
This didn't add value, and they had their industrial
counterparts walking side by side with them. They had
the Chamber of Commerce supporting these activi-
ties; it takes life out of the program. Now we have
some resistance, and 1 understand the human aspects
of this, but America will never do the things I just
talked about if all we do is protect scientific hot dog
stands. We intend within the next few years to have no
overlap within the NASA program. We had five centers
doing similar things. We had five airfields with planes
when we could operate with virtual presence on
planes. We had five centers that were responsible for
expendable launch vehicles. Fine, and good people
are getting very concerned about their survival, but we
all have to do is say we're here to support the
American people. That survival is more important
than anything else in our future. We had an imbalance
in the space program.
In 1992, 49 percent of the budget went to
human space flight, and about 30 percent went into
aeronautics, technology, and science R&D. We are
now at 39 percent for human space flight and 43 per-
cent for aeronautics, technology, and science R&D.
We're getting a shuttle with a much higher reliability,
while we took the budget down and cut the percent-
age, and the budget came down. In 1989, on ascent,
the shuttle had a 1 in 78 probability of not making it.
Today it is 1 in 246, and it is going to continue to go
up, and we're going to announce very soon a new
investment program in shuttle reliability. That's how
you get reliability, by designing it in, not inspecting it
in. There is a very high concern that the shuttle is not
going to be safe because we're changing it. You know
people are saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The
shuttle ain't fixed yet. And we're going to fix it even
better. We intend to go from $10,000 a pound, where
we are today, to $1,000 a pound in launch. This is a
national priority. The budget came down; we repro-
grammed a billion dollars; we didn't go whining back
to Congress saying, "Hey, we want to start a new pro-
gram, we need new money." We prioritized what we
were doing, and we made a billion dollars available.
There are RFP's (requests for proposal) out right now
for the X-33 and the X-34. The X-33 will be about
Mach 17, and the X-34 will be Mach 8. In May, we're
going to fly the DC-XA with a whole host of new tech-
nologies in it. We'll get some data back, and we will
not have to wait 10 years and spend 10 billion dollars
and have an organic program. We had a goal of hav-
ing spacecraft not cost $600 million a copy; today
they cost $200 million a copy. We want them to cost
tens of millions a copy at the turn of the century. We
don't want them to take eight years like they took in
'92 or four years like they take now. We want the cycle
time to be one and a half years from design to
launch. This is the direction we are going in.
Another thing we are proud of is we have con-
verted 40 percent of our procurement budget, and we
have taken NASA out of the role of being a system
integrator. We have handed over to industry the Space
Station. We're in the process of transitioning the shut-
tle, and I know people are worried. They say, "How
could NASA get out of the business of operating the
shuttle?" Well I ask you, with the wonderful aerospace
industry we have in this country — control rooms are
being built, launch centers are being built, spacecraft
are being launched with a very high precision — how
are we ever going to open the space frontier if the gov-
ernment does everything? How would you like to fly on
American Airlines or United Airlines if the federal gov-
ernment operated it? Why are people so terrified of
going to the finest aerospace companies in the world
and asking them to operate the shuttle? We can't be
afraid of change in America. I want to tell you, good
people are worried about non-problems. I also want to
say we're going to make the shuttle as safe as
humanly possible, but you can't go to the frontier and
get the rewards if you're not willing to take the risks and
your stomachs are not strong enough for it. I cannot
stand up here and guarantee you that the shuttle will fly
without a problem. But I'm also confident that America
is not going to shirk and get all hot and sweaty if we
have a problem. We'll fly again very, very soon if we
have a problem, and we'll make it better and better. But
we can't be afraid of turning government functions over
to industry. We have got to open the space frontier.
I also want to say we're going to make the
shuttle as safe as humanly possible, but you
can't go to the frontier and get the rewards
if you're not willing to take the risks and your
stomachs are not strong enough for it.
We had a bidders conference at NASA because
we are getting out of the space operations business.
We're getting out of the space information business,
and we're going to bring in industry. We thought about
50 people would come, but more than 300 showed
up. We're going to have a wild and crazy competition,
and we're just going to get the government out of the
operations business. All this adds up to about $4 to $5
billion a year out of a procurement budget that's $1 1.5
billion. I am very proud to get the government out of
things it doesn't need to be doing and in the mean-
time strengthen American industry. The president has
been very supportive of this.
We're downsizing NASA. We signed up to elim-
inate one-third of our work force and roughly half of
these people are gone, without any forced NASA-wide
115
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
layoffs so far. We're going to go from 25,000 employ-
ees to 17,000, give or take a few, and a total work
force of 215,000 to 160,000. We are about halfway
there on the contractors. The amazing thing is, our
productivity went up 40 percent. It's unbelievable; we
started 30 new programs while we cut the budget 36
percent. We didn't do it alone; everybody in this room
did it. We changed our attitudes; we changed the
approach. So I am very, very optimistic about the
future.
I am optimistic that together we're on the right
path and I want to read something to you. I was on
talk radio on Tuesday in Kansas City, Missouri.
Someone called up and said, "Dan, have you ever
been to the Linda Hall Library?," and I said, "Mo, 1
don't even know what the Linda Hall Library is." They
said, "Do you realize the Linda Hall Library is the
largest scientific library in America?" 1 said,"No." They
said, "Why don't you go over there?" So I went over
there and 1 met some fantastic people. I said, "Show
me something really fun." So they took out a book for
me. It had a deer skin cover, and the book was written
by Nicholas Copernicus of Turin, printed in 1543— and
these hands touched that book. It was unbelievable.
Now Copernicus was exploring the unknown, and he
wasn't trying to develop Tang and Velcro. He had
unbelievable pain and suffering, as did Galileo, who
followed him. And I touched Galileo's book also.
Galileo took that book with him to his deathbed.
Galileo had the courage to say that Copernicus was
right. The Earth revolves around the sun; the sun does
not revolve around the Earth. He had unbelievable
pain and suffering. And the church absolved him just a
few years ago. I hope it doesn't take that long for me.
But in the book the publisher wrote— and it was really
wild, I mean this is just a hundred years after they
started printing books— the publisher said, buy this
book, read it and enjoy. Thank you very much.
116
International Space Station and Spe
Master
Moderator:
Steve P. Scott
Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space System Division
Session
Chair:
Lon L. Rains
Editor
SPACE MEWS
Speakers:
Prof. Ernesto Vallerani
Chairman
Alenia Spazio, Italy
Dr. Alexander N. Kuznetsov
Deputy Director General
Russian Space Agency
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
William MacDonald "Mac" Evans
President
Canadian Space Agency
James R Noblitt
Vice President & General Manager
Missiles & Space Division
Boeing Defense & Space Group
Michael W. Wynne
Vice President & General Manager
Space Systems
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
Thomas R. Rogers
President
Space Transportation Association
Mr. Scott: Lon Rains will be leading the afternoon's
session on the International Space Station and Space
Launch Capabilities. Lon is the editor of Space Mews
and brings with him a broad knowledge of internation-
al space programs as well as an in depth understand-
ing of current political and econmic issues. Lon,
please come up to the stage. Ladies and gentlemen,
please give a warm welcome for Mr. Lon Rains.
Mr. Rains: The topics of this afternoon's session cover
two of the costliest activities in space: the International
Space Station and space launch.
With political support in Europe and the United
States now secure, the focus in the International
Space Station program now shifts to getting the hard-
ware built, launched, and assembled on time. Russians
and Americans have had their bumps in the road this
year — both in hardware development and in reaching
an agreement on the amount of money to be paid to
Russia and in getting that money transferred to the
Russian organizations building the hardware.
The challenge facing all of the Space Station
partners over the next several years is a big one, and I
look forward to hearing our panelists discuss where
things in the program stand now and how well they are
positioned to fulfill their mission on time and on budget.
Space launch, which has always been the most
expensive part of any space endeavor, is undergoing a
period of profound change. Competition in the indus-
try is growing, and as it does, the business is becom-
ing increasingly international. Our panelists today will
talk about the state of the industry today and where it
is headed in the future.
Our first speaker is Professor Ernesto Vallerani,
chairman of Alenia Spazio. He was the local project
manager and later the technical director for the space
lab program for Air Italia. He became the general
director of the space sector in 1980 and was appoint-
ed to his current position in 1991.
Prof. Vallerani: Thank you very much. Ladies and gen-
tleman, I would like to speak about the Space Station
as an opportunity to expand space activities and
explore its utilization. After several years gestation and
quite a number of difficulties that have greatly modi-
fied its design, the International Space Station has
passed the critical point in the decision process and
now is finally facing the more technical difficulties that
any space program has to suffer before the maiden
injection into orbit.
The start of operations of such a complex sys-
tem, which comprises the contribution of so many dif-
ferent countries, is undoubtedly going to mark a pro-
found change in the way space activities will be con-
ducted in orbit in the future.
We all know the controversy originated in the
United States by a part of the scientific community
against the realization of such a costly program; the
debate has spread around the world, and in many
cases fierce disputes have arisen.
The intention has been to make the Space
Station the symbol of a "dividing element," with parti-
sans in favor and others against. Mot only have differ-
ent concepts on how better to accomplish the scientif-
ic research in space have collided, but mainly interests
of various nature have clashed. Notwithstanding that
the echoes of such a battle are not yet fully softened,
there is, at least with the exclusion of the most aggres-
sive opposition, a widespread acceptance of the fact
that the Space Station is going to be in short time a
117
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
reality one has to live with, and the sooner its potential
is understood the better.
The availability of a large, permanently manned
space base in low-Earth orbit, designed to become a
laboratory to conduct a large variety of experiments in
the yet unknown space environment, will prove to be a
very powerful tool to expand and to spring the
research in different fields.
The utilization of the Space Station has the
potential to stimulate the enlargement of research to
different fields of activities not yet touched by the ini-
tiatives so far undertaken in space.
The number of hours during which working activi-
ties and scientific researches have been performed in orbit
is still limited, even if largely increased over the last years,
to draw any conclusive assessment of the real value of the
potential of operating in the space environment.
Very encouraging results have been so far
accumulated, and a number of promising perspectives
are being unveiled; it is time now to engage systematic
researches in different directions to be in the position,
later on, to reap the reward.
A fundamental feature of the actual Space
Station is its international nature; the presence of the
Russians — in addition to the Europeans, Japanese, and
Canadians — has rendered the approach more complete
and really worldwide. The United States has maintained a
position of leadership that is needed in any enterprise,
especially of such dimensions, but the weight of the part-
ners has increased, leading to a more balanced situation.
The enlargement of the number of countries
involved in the construction of the International Space
Station Alpha has introduced additional complexities in
the design of the whole but has enlarged the commit-
ment to utilize it to a wider community of scientists
and researchers across the world.
The challenge of the Space Station is moving
from its design and construction to its utilization; it is
true that a lot has yet to be done, to come to the com-
pletion of its final configuration in orbit, but even more
has to be conceived, planned, and definitively agreed
upon on its utilization.
The Space Station represents an extremely
engaging enterprise requiring commitments over long
periods of time.
The front end of this endeavor is the design,
development, and construction of the various elements
forming the space base; of equal challenge and impor-
tance are its utilization that requires the mobilization of
the scientific communities and of the advanced tech-
nology operators and its operations that implies a new
integrated approach involving industrial capabilities
and resources.
Italy, from the very early dialogues with which
the U.S. government was opening in 1984, the possi-
118
bility of participating to the allied countries, has
demonstrated a strong and continuous interest in par-
ticipating in the Space Station.
Participation, for us, has always meant a share
of responsibility in providing elements at the level of
hardware/software, that is to say, a participation in the
construction of the Space Station. Our interest, from
the very beginning, has gone beyond this point,
having in mind the utilization and the operation of
the Space Station as reflected in the NASA-ASI
agreements.
Italian Contribution to the ISSA
For several years, the Italian government has had
a positive attitude toward space activities, and our bud-
gets have been progressively increasing, especially after
the foundation of the Italian Space Agency in 1988.
Space has been, and is, considered important
for many aspects: for the potential of the applications,
such as telecommunication, Earth observation, and
meteorology as well as for the scientific opportunities
opened in different fields, and last, but not least, for the
technological developments space activities require to be
developed to accomplish complex missions successfully.
Fig. IS- 101
It has been recognized that without a compe-
tent and solid industry, specifically dedicated to, and
deeply specialized in, space activities, no real progress
can be achieved and no benefit from the investment
made can be sought, and the spinoff from space pro-
grams cannot be diffused to other fields.
For that reason, selected aeronautical and elec-
tronics industries have been favored in their specializa-
tion to become an integrated space industry, as has
been the case of Alenia Spazio that has progressively
grown from subsystem-level entities to a system-level
industry with full capacities to design and construct
complete sophisticated systems with the support of
other specialized industries [Fig. IS- 101].
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
MPLM Pressurized Shell
Fig. IS- 102
A constant line in the strategy of our country in
dealing with space matters has always been to favor
"international cooperation."
Italy has supported the creation of the Euro-
pean Space Agency and has largely contributed to
funding the European programs; in parallel, our gov-
ernment, recognizing the leading role of the United
States in the space field, has favored, as much as pos-
sible, cooperation with the CInited States.
NASA and ASI, the Italian Space Agency, have
enjoyed several bilateral cooperative programs, such
as Tethered, Lageos, SAR X, and IRIS, that have
strengthened the links between the two space agencies
as well as the ones between the leading industries in
the two countries.
The attention of our governments to capture
the opportunities of participating in new challenging
ventures, full of potential for the future developments,
and the willingness to reinforce the spirit of coopera-
tion with the CInited States have, since the early phases
of the initiative, made Italy a strong supporter of the
Space Station.
Our strategy of participation has materialized
along two lines. Within Europe, Italy has been, together
with Germany, very active in supporting the Columbus
program, that, born as a bilateral German-Italian pro-
gram, only successively was transferred to ESA to
become the basis of the European contribution to the
Space Station Freedom [Fig. IS- 102].
In addition to such an initiative, our country
has conducted discussions and negotiations with the
United States that have led to a memorandum of
understanding between NASA and ASI, signed in
December 1991, that has established a bilateral coop-
eration between USA and Italy through which Italy pro-
vides to NASA the pressurized logistic carriers named
MPLM (mini pressurized logistics module) to serve the
operation of the International Space Station Alpha
[Fig. IS- 103].
In conjunction with the critical period our
country has been experiencing in the last years, also
Fig. IS- 103
the space activities have suffered not only from finan-
cial limitation but also, and even more, from the crisis
which our space agency has been facing as a result of
personal internal conflicts that frequently have had
anything to do with the revision of the strategies that
are by someone requested to happen.
The old dispute on the scientific utility and jus-
tification of the Space Station has been reopened, and
an attempt has been made by few representatives —
exponents of the scientific community — to raise the
issue of blocking the continuation of our participation
to the Space Station, proposing other programs con-
sidered more efficient to respond to their scientific
interest and to the ones of industries excluded from
the agreed and approved programs.
In view of the ministerial conference held in
Toulouse in fall of 1995, these issues became very hot,
but finally, as one could reasonably expect, the Italian
government, through the voice of their minister of
research, confirmed, even in presence of the financial
limitations that are troubling almost all the countries,
our support to the European programs and, in particu-
lar, to Columbus that was fixing definitively the
European participation in the International Space
Station Alpha.
Meantime, thanks especially to the action of
our ministers of foreign affairs, continuity was ensured
to the bilateral cooperation between NASA and ASI,
and the full line of involvement in the cooperation
effort in support of the Space Station was maintained
and confirmed.
The aftereffects of the polemics are fading,
even if the results of the "Commission of Five," estab-
lished by the minister to provide elements on the strat-
egy for future space activities, have turned out not
favorable to the Space Station and its utilization.
Recently, at the end of March, ESA signed with
DASA-RI, the prime contractor of the Columbus
Orbiting Facility program, the contract for the execu-
tion of the C/D Phases, finally authorizing the
119
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. IS- 104
go-ahead on the construction of the flight hardware.
Meanwhile, Spazio Alenia is progressing with the final
discussion with AS1 to obtain the contractual coverage
for the completion of the MPLM program.
The activities on the logistic modules are well
in progress, and ASI, with our support, has actively
participated the last week of March, to the NASA 1DR
2A held in Houston.
In our facility in Turin, the construction of the
first full module of the engineering unit has been
recently completed. The complex welding of the vari-
ous panels of the outer shell has been performed with
extreme success, after the process was qualified
through a comprehensive set of tests on parts repre-
sentatives of the various configuration.
The design activities are progressing as well
to match the planned delivery of the first flight unit in
March '98, in order to satisfy the December '98 date
for the first flight. From there on, the Italian logistic
modules will serve the Space Station in its construc-
tion phases and, later on, will be used to support the
operation of the ISSA.
It has to be understood that the three MPLM
modules provided by ASI to NASA are the only pres-
surized carriers foreseen to fly on board the orbiter to
be utilized to service the International Space Station.
The Italian pressurized logistic modules will be
used to transport supplies and materials, including user
experiments of mass up to about 10 tons; they are
designed to provide two major features simultaneously:
logistic carrier supporting passive as well as active, cap-
able of being flown numerous times, and elements pro-
viding habitable work space to allow operation in orbit.
The high level of involvement of Italy in the
ISSA program, as briefly outlined and recalled, is clear-
ly the demonstration of the conviction that the Space
Station is seen by us as an extraordinary opportunity to
expand space activities.
Not only has the government been investing in
120
the Columbus and MPLM programs supporting ISSA,
but industry, at least our industry that has for long time
supported these initiatives also when lacking complete
funding of the activities in progress, has also invested
in production facilities and tools as well as in techno-
logical developments to maintain and improve our
position as leader in Europe in the design and con-
struction of pressurized manned modules.
Our conviction that the Space Station is going
to represent a fundamental step in the enlargement of
space activities worldwide has led us to engage our-
selves, as much as possible in every venture linked
somehow to its operation and development. An exam-
ple, dating back several years, is the fundamental role
our company has had in the development of Spacehab
[Fig. IS-104J that now is successfully flying on board
the orbiter in its mission to MIR.
In the expectation that once operative the sta-
tion will prove capable of further growth, we are con-
tinuously searching for opportunities to support such
potential.
In the last months, we have been engaged in
proposals to offer to NASA derivatives from our basic
logistic module to serve as housing of the centrifuge
that is needed to expand the research capabilities of
the existing ISSA in the growing field of life sciences.
Our attention is as well focused on what are
called space facilities, that is to say sophisticated
equipment designed to serve a large community of
users providing them with the efficient means to per-
form their experiments in space.
Space Station is quite a powerful laboratory,
offering a large amount of valuable resources to the
users; it is equipped with a variety of facilities to operate
different types of researches and activities, but, for sure,
once in operation it will require the development of
many more of such facilities like furnaces, incubators,
dedicated laboratories, and specialized equipment.
Alenia Spazio has been working for several
years in this field, developing for ESA the autonomous
fluid physics module (AFPM) and the bubble, drop,
and particle unit (BDPU) specifically dedicated
to experiments in fluid physics that have successfully
flown, respectively, on the Spacelab D2 mission (April
1993) and on the Spacelab IML-2 mission (July 1994).
Alenia Spazio is the candidate prime contractor
for the fluid science laboratory (FSL), reconfigurable,
multi-use equipment to carry out numerous different
fluid sciences experiments as part of the ESAs micro-
gravity program, to be launched with COF in the year
2002.
In addition to these activities performed on
agency contracts, we are evaluating the opportunities
to develop specialized space facilities to be offered to
the future users of the Space Station.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
If private capital has to be invested in space
activities to prepare for an expansion of the sector, we
believe this could be a promising area of high potential
due to the positive effects it could have on the expan-
sion of the Space Station utilization, in general for
scientific, but also technological, purposes.
Another outstanding opportunity to expand
space activities beyond the area of design and con-
struction of flight hardware is offered to industries by
the need to ensure the Space Station all the services
that are required to support, maintain, and operate it
in orbit.
As part of these activities to be conducted on
ground, Italy is also engaged in the construction and
implementation of an ASI center located in Turin,
called ALTEC (ASI Logistic Technological Engineering
Center), aimed at supporting the Italian and European
utilization of ISSA by providing engineering logistic and
payload integration services.
Alenia Spazio is the leading industrial contrac-
tor for the development and, later on, for the opera-
tions of such a center. The center is already operative
and has supported with success the Euromir 95 mis-
sion, in particular the three Italian experiments (T2,
Verification Approach for Microbial Contamination;
T4, Human Posture Experiment; and T7, Robotic
Experiment).
Perspectives of Expanded Utilization
The many studies on Space Station and its uti-
lization, the first dating back nearly 30 years, were tar-
geted at identifying as many as possible fields of utiliza-
tion of the permanently manned space outposts and
promising areas that would justify the large investments
expected to be made to develop the Space Station.
There was a time when electrophoresis, protein
growth, crystal formation were identified as potentials
to generate the "none product" of extreme value that
by itself would have justified the return of investment
on the Space Station.
Too much expectation was raised for such
types of activities with strong commercial implications
that, with only limited research background, would
have immediately achieved striking results; we too
often tend to forget that the amount of time dedicated
to conduct research activities in space is quite limited
and that a large number of different initiatives have
surfaced without having the real opportunity to explore
in depth the potential of each single research.
The decision to embark into the development
of the Space Station was taken in the United States
without proof that its utilization would have led easily
to definitive positive results; the same happened when
Europe and the other countries like Japan and Canada
decided to join. This attitude is absolutely correct; the
Space Station is destined to become a multi-purpose,
multi-discipline laboratory, able to operate in space for
several years. It is a unique opportunity for research, in
whatever field, to be conducted in the new environ-
ment typical of low-Earth orbits; unique point of view
of our Earth as a whole; unique point of view of the
universe free from contamination of Earth's atmos-
phere; unique point of experimentation of the
absolutely new effects of microgravity; and last, but
not least, unique opportunity to verify and to develop
new technologies to be applied in the design and con-
struction of the next generation of spacecraft.
The presence of man on board makes the dif-
ference with respect to what can be done with other
space systems. The long duration of the mission and
the unique factor that we can recover facilities, payloads
as well as the products of the research introduces unpre-
cedented possibilities and offers unique possibilities.
Being afraid to be asked, as it is said, "to pay
the bill," a number of scientists of disciplines for which
the Space Station does not offer a unique possibility,
instead of orienting new researches on the exploitation
of the Space Station potential preferred to continue to
utilize, in a conventional way, smaller satellites and
payloads for which they are convinced they are in the
position to control better.
The presence of man on board makes the
difference with respect to what can be done
with other space systems.
Meantime, also the military interest has largely
been diminished, and the delays introduced by the
Challenger accident have discouraged the few com-
mercial enterprises so that, at the end, the Space
Station utilization was largely identified only with
microgravity research in the fields of life sciences and
material sciences.
It is time now to give vigorous support to an
enlargement of the disciplines to achieve wider interests
in Space Station utilization from different research com-
munities, the scientific as well as the technological ones.
Now that the space agencies have secured the
development of the various elements of the ISSA and
that industries are all at work to meet the schedules
of the delivery of the many parts that will finally match
into the gigantic mosaic of the flying configuration, all
attention is moving toward the utilization more empha-
tically than in the past.
As said, in its long design evolution the Space
Station was always intended to be a manned orbiting
laboratory for microgravity research, other disciplines
being considered to the extent compatible with such a
primary focus.
121
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Although the various utilization studies so far
undertaken by the involved space agencies have origi-
nated already different application concepts, only
recently have areas other than microgravity gained
greater attention and weight in the utilization scenario.
The evolution can be seen as a result, among
other factors, of the changes in orbital characteristics
and crew size that the new station has undergone.
The ISSA's orbital inclination— planned today
to be 51.6 degrees, instead of the 28.5 of the Space
Station Freedom, and its altitude being lowered from
500 kilometers to about 400 kilometers— make the
station more attractive for disciplines such as Earth
observation, remote sensing, atmospheric and ionos-
pheric physics, and communication applications.
The reduction of the crew size from eight to six
astronauts, in the fully operational phase, has favored
payloads with a higher degree of autonomy and has
enlarged the potential of robotized applications and
of tele-science.
The Space Station redesign efforts have thus
resulted in a sharper definition of the orbital complex
capabilities and constraints and have prompted a
reassessment of its utilization. As a consequence,
though microgravity research still gets the lion's share,
other areas, such as technology development and test-
ing, remote sensing, and communications, have been
included in payload increments at an increasing rate.
Indeed, the very characteristics of the ISSA
complex make it an ideal outpost for those remote
sensing and communications applications which
require neither extreme ground coverage nor extremely
accurate pointing, but which definitely benefit from
ground track and orbital condition repetitions.
The prospect of enlarging interest to utilize the
Space Station for different purposes seems to
exist and to be slowly but steadily developing.
Furthermore, remote sensing and telecommu-
nications applications operate over long time periods
with minimal crew involvement, a bonus in the sta-
tion's crew-tight operational framework. Commun-
ication and remote sensing equipment also takes up
resources mostly at unpressurized locations and has
moderate requirements that can be scheduled.
Mainly for historical reasons, the Earth observa-
tion and communications communities have only
recently been involved in Space Station utilization pro-
motion efforts, and, consequently, some catch-up
activities are planned to review the potential applicabili-
ty of payload elements being developed or envisaged
in the EOB and COM fields to the ISSA scenario.
Laser interference and scattering instruments
as well as radar for atmospheric (wind and rain) moni-
toring or for geodesy represent typical items matching,
at first inspection, the ISSA constraints, as do instru-
ments for atmospheric composition studies using opti-
cal or radio signal absorption by the Earth limb and
optical communications systems.
It is worth pointing out that interference-based
instruments accommodated on board the ISSA com-
plex, as well as communications technology (e.g.,
laser- based, both transmitter and receiver) ones,
would definitely benefit from the simultaneous pres-
ence on orbit of other free-flying platforms with similar
instruments, e.g., the Envisat platform. Other systems,
such as tether-based ones, may test alternate trans-
portation, attitude control, and rendezvous and com-
munications (ELF/QLF) techniques and, possibly, sup-
port station operations.
They would also levy very moderate, if any,
resupply requirements on the ISSA logistic (i.e., trans-
portation) system and would most likely not perturb
the station's dynamical environment in the bandwidth
relevant to microgravity investigations due to their
small masses.
While the outcome of the assessments being
carried out by the respective user communities and by
the relevant agencies needs to be awaited before more
detailed payload increment definitions can include
EOB and COM payload elements, the relevance of
ISSA for non-microgravity related, and for Earth obser-
vation and communications in particular, cannot be
overstated, as the typical instruments adopted by these
disciplines are usually well-suited for long duration,
high orbital inclination space missions, with low crew
involvement, reduced logistics, and moderate resource
requirements.
The prospect of enlarging interest to utilize the
Space Station for different purposes seems to exist
and to be slowly but steadily developing.
We can notice more easily what is happening
in Italy; several years ago, immediately before the
Challenger tragedy, we performed a wide spectrum
survey of the potential interests of the Italian scientific
community and of the national research centers as
well as of the high-tech industries, collecting a largely
positive response.
The delays in the recovery of the flight opportu-
nities and the continuous postponements of the Space
Station operation have discouraged all the interested
people so that up to some time ago there seemed that
only very few were maintaining their interests.
Today, as the time when the station will be
orbited draws near, and also due to the revitalization of
the utilization programs in ESA, we can detect a rather
favorable situation: At least 12 organizations in Italy are
\22
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
ITALIAN SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS INTERESTED IN ISSA UTILIZATION
MARS, Microgravity Advanced Research
Centre, Napoli
IFCAM, Italian Research Council
Genova
Science Park S. Raffaele/DIBIT
Milano
Astronomical Observatory of Turin
University of Naples, Department of Engineering Services
University of Genoa, Department of Earth Sciences
University of Rome, Department of Medicine/INRCA
University of Rome, School of Aerospace Medicine
Italian Research Council/MASPEC, Parma
University of Udine, Department of Medicine
Polytechnic of Milan, Centre of Bioengineering
University of Perugia, Department of Hygiene
CARSO, Centre for Advanced Research in
Space Optics, Trieste
Main field of interest: Fluid Science
Focal point: Prof. R. Montil
Main field of interest: Material Science
Focal point: Dr. A. Passerone
Main field of interest: Human Physiology/Biotechnology
Focal point: Prof. P.C. Marchisio
Main field of interest: Solar Physics
Focal point: Prof. E. Antonucci
Main field of interest: Earth Observation
Focal point: Prof. S. Vetrella
Main field of interest: Crystal Growth
Focal point: Prof. R. Bedarida
Main field of interest: Human Physiology
Focal point: Dott. F. Strollo
Main field of interest: Human Physiology Cardiology
Focal point: Prof. A. Scano
Main field of interest: Material Processing
Focal point: Dott. L. Zanotti
Main field of interest: Human Physiology/Biomechanics
Focal point: Prof. Di Prampero
Main field of interest: Human Physiology/Biomechanics
Focal point: Prof. A. Pedotti
Main field of interest: Biology/Contamination
Focal point: Prof. M. Pitzurra
Main field of interest: Astrophysics
Focal point: Prof. R. Stalio
demonstrating sincere and definitive interest in the
ISSA utilization (see table above).
We expect that in a short time ASI will again
take the initiative to give vigorous support in Italy to
the utilization of the Space Station.
At this time we believe the Italians are in a
quite favorable position: it must be recalled that as
part of the NASA/ASI memorandum of understanding,
Italy will receive from NASA free access to the Space
Station for its utilization as a counterpart for the supply
of the three mini pressurized logistic modules.
The wording of the agreement, under revision
now to take into account the new situation after the
extension of participation to the Russians, speaks of
percentage of racks allocation, of external parts, of
power, of crew time available for the Italian users.
These valuable possibilities, that some in our
scientific community seem not to have fully appreciat-
ed—once properly advertised and transformed into
real research plans — are going to stimulate vigorously,
we believe, the research activities in our country in sev-
eral fields.
123
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Some indications of interest, also from the more
advanced industries, seem to be coming to the surface;
recently the Ferrari car manufacturer has indicated its
intention to conduct experiments on board the station.
We hope that many more will demonstrate their interest
for such a type of research; in particular, the space com-
panies themselves surprisingly have not yet fully evaluat-
ed the potential of utilizing the Space Station as a labo-
ratory for their technologies and product developments.
Several changes can be foreseen once we all will have
available a fully operative laboratory in space.
Utilization of the Space Station
In past years, space programs have progres-
sively become a test for international cooperation; the
activities of ESA in Europe are by far the most elo-
quent example of how up to 13 countries have joined
resources to achieve common goals. On the CIS. side,
cooperation with different countries has been going on
for many years and has given quite positive results.
SpaceLab, the European laboratory that has flown 13
times so far on board the orbiter, is a remarkable
demonstration that coordinated development of syner-
gic flight products provide benefit on both sides.
At a national level, we just mentioned the rele-
vance that cooperation with the United States has had
for Italy and is having to support our space programs.
Now we have in front of us the International Space
Station Alpha, the most spectacular example of interna-
tional cooperation. Americans and Russians are working
together to build the largest space complex ever con-
ceived, and Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians are
part of the same team, providing their invaluable contri-
bution to form a "unicorn" that for years will remain the
symbol of a joint effort encompassing three continents
and involving all the most advanced and technologically
powerful countries in the world.
Let's not debate the way in which such cooper-
ation has evolved and the reasons that have supported
it; maybe we would discover that rather than a true
willingness to join efforts in such an enterprise the dri-
ving factor was the need to share the investments and
the risks. In any case, here we are, with such a com-
plex structure of agreements and such a difficult
mosaic of contribution, let's appreciate the final result
that is quite remarkable: We will have the Space
Station and the beginning of the new millennium.
The problem now is how the Space Station will
be operated and maintained in orbit for its life, which
is expected to last 20 or more years. The real cost to
operate such an orbital complex will be one of the
major, if not the major, factors affecting the success of
its utilization.
Starting from the U.S. government, which does
have the largest involvement, new schemes are being
discussed. The so-called industrialization of the Space
Station operations and logistics is going to open
extremely interesting and challenging opportunities in
new type of activities. After having developed the hard-
ware and software needed to construct the internation-
al complex, industries must face, in the near future,
the problem to offer services in support of the Space
Station operations.
The station's international nature requires that
a selected team of aerospace industries make a large
integrated cooperative effort to offer a viable solution
that will satisfy the requirements and needs of the
involved space agencies and nations.
Initial contacts are being made to this extent
among industries to prepare such undertakings that
will have a fundamental impact on the equilibriums of
the leading industrial entities all over the world.
In order to prepare the advent of the Space
Station properly and to exploit its full potential, a plan
for its utilization has to be elaborated. A strategy of uti-
lization needs to be conceived and agreed upon in due
time; that means several years before the utilization
comes to action.
The complexity of the problem and the fact
that a large number of actors are involved require that
right now a highly coordinated effort has to be initiated
by NASA and the other space agencies to mature the
required solutions.
This problem, of course, is well evident to the
responsibilities of the various organizations in charge
of preparing these plans. In different countries, with
different levels of maturity, activities are going on at all
levels, from the competent authorities and agencies to
the leading research centers, down to the single
researchers.
The not too frequent opportunities to fly experi-
ments on board Spacelab or Spacehab, and now on
MIR, are used to advance research activities and to
prepare for the oncoming Space Station era.
Some form of coordination exists between the
activities performed and in progress or under study in
the various interested countries. What we are afraid is
not sufficiently developed is a common strategy to
jointly plan the future utilization.
We must not forget that in a few months time
the amount of payloads that can be operated on board
of the 1SSA will correspond, more or less, to all the
payloads flown before on board the shuttle. In order to
plan for such large possibilities, there is the absolute
need to consider the utilization of the Space Station,
the next large international cooperative enterprise that
is going to last for a minimum of 20 years and, hope-
fully, more.
The planning, coordination, and control of
such a complex of activities that entail quite a variety
124
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
of different interests is a continuous effort to be made
by a competent independent entity that has the power
delegated by the governments to overrule the single
tendencies.
An international super agency can be the
answer to such a problem that seems to be, if not
unsolvable, or at least very hard to solve.
The strategy for the partnership and for the
promotion of non-partner utilization of the Inter-
national Space Station, has been proposed as an
argument of discussion in the international workshop
dealing with "International Space Cooperation: From
Recommendation to Actions" that the AIAA (American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) and CEAS
(Confederation of European Aerospace Societies) are
organizing next May at the ESA facility of ESRIN in
Frascati, close to Rome in Italy. If not solutions, we
expect at least interesting discussions on this topic of
vital importance to plan the strategy of utilization of
the Space Station properly.
To build, to operate, and to utilize the Inter-
national Space Station Alpha is the challenge of the
many countries that have agreed to support this
unique program. The availability of the Space Station
is going to change the future of space activities the
world over when, at the beginning of the new century,
such permanent assembly of manned laboratories,
continuously attended by expert researchers, will be
orbiting. It will impose a new trend in how research
and experimentation in different fields are done, like it
or not.
Mr. Rains: Our next speaker is Dr. Alexander Kuznetsov.
He's a member of the Board of the Russian Space
Agency and the director of the Space Agency's depart-
ment responsible for development and production of
launch vehicles and rocket engines for Russian non-
military space programs. Dr. Kuznetsov's department is
also responsible for operating the facilities at the
Baikonur space complex which had been turned over
to the Russian Space Agency. His department also is
responsible for maintaining ground facilities used for
testing space equipment. Let's welcome Dr. Kuznetsov.
Editor's note: This presentation was titled
Organization of Space Activities and International
Space Projects in Russia, by Alexander Kuznetsov.
Dr. Kuznetsov: In my presentation, I would like to
describe the structure of Russian Federal executive
bodies responsible for space activities in Russia, as
well as existing regulations for foreign economic activi-
ty in the area of space.
The Russian Space Agency was established by
a decree of the president of the Russian Federation in
ORGANIZATION OF SPASE ACTWITIES IN THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION
CENTRAL
I COMMITTEE OF THEf
1 COMMUNIST PARTY J
MINISTRY OF
ECONOMICS
I "'•"
wN&mror
genual machine
building
MINISTRY OF
DEFENSE
nxANane or
sam
GROUND
COMFLIEX
FOR SfACE
FLIGHT
cannot
Fig. IS-201
February 1992, shortly after the disintegration of the
former Soviet Union.
In the former Soviet Union, the creation of
space technology was the responsibility of the Ministry
of General Machinery, which had within its purview
practically all the design bureaus and production facili-
ties working in the area of space [Fig. IS-201 J.
All of the government funds allocated for the
development of space technology (both military and
non-military), as well as rocket technology, were given
to the Ministry of General Machinery. The ministry then
used this money to finance all of the research and
development programs carried out in the country. The
Ministry of Defense of the USSR issued specifications
and requirements for space systems and complexes
which were developed for it , and participated in their
testing. As far as non-military users of information
obtained from space, such as the Academy of
Sciences, Ministry of Communications, State
Committees for Hydrometeorology, Mapping, and oth-
ers, they were only informed of the parameters of
space systems under development. Later such organi-
zations received information from space systems,
which they used for their purposes.
In the Soviet Union, operation of all space facil-
ities (for both military and non-military purposes), as
well as acquisition of space technology was carried out
by the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, which had
within its purview all spaceports, and ground facilities
for space flight control.
Under such organization, non-military space
technology received only leftovers from the country's
space budget. Moreover, nobody even calculated the
money assigned for non-military space programs.
In the last years of the USSR existence, an
attempt was made to increase the role of the users by
allocating them some space budget money to pay for
R&D. At that time the Users' Ministries and Agencies
became responsible for the development of space
125
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. IS-203
technology for non-military application [Fig. IS-202].
However these ministries and agencies did not have
qualified professionals capable of placing purchase
orders, or controlling even satellite development pro-
grams — to say nothing of launch vehicle production or
launch site operation. By that time the defense budget
had been much reduced, and the amount of space
technology purchased by the Ministry of Defense had
dropped considerably. As an example, in 1992, pro-
duction of the Soyuz vehicle — the main launcher of
non-military satellites — was completely stopped.
In 1992, the government of Russia formed a
commission headed by Yegor Gaidar, who was then
prime minister, to evaluate the situation of Russian
cosmonautics. The commission included leading sci-
entists, designers, representatives of Russian ministries
and agencies interested in the results of space activi-
ties. As a result of this effort, a decree was signed by
the president of Russia which established the Russian
Space Agency, and Yuri Koptev was appointed as its
general director. The decree also defined the Russian
Space Agency's purpose and objectives as follows:
• Carry out government policy in space explo
ration and use.
• Develop Russian Federal Space Program
• Operate as main customer of space systems
and space complexes, as well as facilities used
for science and national economy
• Provide coordination and support to com
mercial space projects.
• Cooperate with appropriate agencies in CIS
and other countries in exploration and use of
space.
The main purpose in establishing the Russian
Space Agency was to divide non-military and military
space budgets, and to have a government structure
that would manage all the activates related to space
exploration and peaceful use of space [Fig. IS-203].
In 1993, main objectives of the agency were
written down in the Russian Federation Law on Space
Activity.
Today, the Russian Space Agency has the fol-
lowing structure [Fig. IS-204]:
Fig. IS-204
Economic Departments
• Department for Creation of Federal Space Programs
(Forms the agency budget and develops plans for
the future)
• Department for Implementation of Federal Space
Programs
(Is in charge of financing of current contracts)
Technical Departments are responsible for sign-
ing and implementation of contracts (for R&D or for
acquisition of space equipment), for coordination of the
activities of companies working in space industry, and
for operation of ground facilities in their specific areas.
Technical Departments
• Department for Manned Space Flight Programs
126
• Department for Launch Vehicles and Supporting
Infrastructure
• Department of Space Facilities for National
Economy and Science
Support Departments.
As a result of restructuring, in 1995 the
Russian Space Agency took over the control of the fol-
lowing assets: part of the Baikonur Space Complex
(which accounts for about 60 percent of Baikonur total
value); three ships of the space flight control, trajectory
measurement and telemetry complex; cosmonauts
training center.
The biggest challenge was to maintain the
required level of Baikonur operation (especially very
active operation of the Soyuz vehicle) in the conditions
when military professionals were being replaced with
civilians. However, we have coped with that task suc-
cessfully. Thus, at the latest launch of Soyuz the
ground team included 70 percent of professionals
from industry [Fig. IS-205].
Transfer of the Baikonur facilities to Russian
Space Agency has given us guarantees for fulfillment
of our international commitments. All Russian manned
missions are accomplished only with use of facilities
which are in our purview. Likewise, pre-launch opera-
tions for the Proton and Soyuz vehicles to put into
orbit foreign payloads will also be done at the Russian
Space Agency facilities.
The Russian Space Agency coordinates the
work of 42 research institutes, design bureaus, and
production plants.
It should be mentioned that the relations our
agency has established with industrial companies are
absolutely different from those they used to have with
the Ministry of General Machinery, in the times of the
Soviet Union.
In those times, industrial enterprises fully
depended on ministries in all issues, such as produc-
tion plans, levels of salaries, finance, and other funds.
All materials and equipment were distributed by min-
istries; directors of enterprises were appointed by min-
istries, and so on.
This situation has changed. Now the Russian
Space Agency has contractual relations with Russian
companies. That is, it contracts them for development,
production, and other work as required by the Federal
Space Program. According to Russian laws, interfer-
ence into company operations is not acceptable.
Now a few words about the attitude of the
Russian Space Agency to the privatization of space
industries. We are not trying to expedite this process,
although we are not against it. Those company direc-
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
Fig. IS-205
MAIN PRINCIPLES OF FOREIGN
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
ENSURE INDEPENDENCE OF COMPANIES IN THEIR
FOREIGN ECONOMIC ACTMTIES
PROVIDE FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS ON THE PART
OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR FOREIGN ECONOMIC
ACTIVITIES OF COMPANIES
'OBSERVE RUSSIAN FEDERATION LAWS AND
INTERNATIONAL AGREF4\0NTS
Fig. IS-206
tors who have realistic plans for cost reduction and
attracting additional investments after privatization will
always enjoy our support. Among Russian companies
which have recently completed their privatization docu-
ments are Energomash, Moscow Electromechanical
Equipment Plant, Motor Design Bureau, and others.
Gaining more independence is good primarily for large
companies with high level of diversification embracing
space and non-space products. In the long run, RSA
should retain several government research institutes
and design bureaus that would provide expert evalua-
tion of space projects, and do research and develop-
ment in key areas of space technology.
Space industry companies also enjoy complete
freedom in their foreign economic operations [Fig. IS-
206]. The role of the Russian Space Agency consists
of creating favorable conditions for their cooperation
with foreign partners. As a rule, we act as guarantors
in large-scale commercial projects. In addition, we
make available for them our ground test stands, and
space complexes. We also ensure quality control and
reliability control during the manufacturing of space
equipment to be used for commercial space projects.
Russia participates in the Regime of Control
over Proliferation of Rocket Technologies. In this con-
nection, Russian laws establish certain export control
procedures for space technologies and equipment
127
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. IS-207
coming under this regime [Fig. IS-207].
1 will not talk about the development and sales
of weapons and munitions, as this is beyond the RSA
competence. I will only address procedures established
for international cooperation for peaceful use of space.
RSA reviews proposals submitted by Russian
companies, prepares drafts of Russian Government
Decrees and sends them to appropriate ministries for
coordination and approval. The MoD evaluates pro-
jects and concludes that the project does not involve
development or sales of weapons. In such cases, coor-
dination with the Government Committee for Military
Technology Policy (responsible for weapons trade) is
not, as a rule, required. Russian Federal Commission
for Currency and Export Control sees to it that the pro-
ject agrees with Russian national laws for control over
proliferation of rocket technologies. Ministry of Foreign
Affairs verifies that the project agrees with Russia's
international obligations. After all of these approvals
are granted, the project is reviewed and approved by
the Government Commission for Export Control,
chaired by Oleg Soskovets, First Deputy to the Prime
Minister of Russia.
We have gone through the above procedure
twice in connection with one of the largest commercial
projects between Russia and the United States in the
area of space technology — the one dealing with joint
development and production of the RD-180 rocket
engine by Pratt & Whitney and NPO Energomash. In
May 1994, the Russian government signed a decree
approving deliveries of the RD-180 engines to the
United States for launching commercial payloads.
Later, Lockheed Martin came with proposals to use
this engine in the EELV program which require the use
of the engine for launching U.S. government payloads.
In this connection, it became necessary to form a
CJ.S./Russian joint venture and eventually establish pro-
duction in the U.S. The Russian Space Agency has
worked these proposals with Russian Ministry of
Defense, and other Russian agencies, and finally sub-
mitted a draft decree to the Russian Government. The
decree was signed by Russian Prime Minister Victor
Chernomyrdin on March 25. This document provides
the legal basis required for the implementation of the
RD-180 development project.
Delivery of data, (such as research, design, or
manufacturing data), as well as delivery of space
equipment (engines and other products) require a
license from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Economic
Relations [Fig. IS-208]. Such a license is granted
based on an application which Russian Space Agency
submits to that ministry after approval by the Ministry
of Defense and Federal Commission for Currency and
Export Control.
Once again I would like to emphasize that the
above procedures are established for commercial pro-
jects in the area of space, that is, those which do not
involve the development or sales of weapons.
Weapons trade in Russia is under strict govern-
ment control. All of it is carried out through the gov-
ernment company named Rosvooruzhenije. In this
case, license is granted by the Russian Government
Committee for Military Technology Policy.
1 have gone into that much detail describing
the functions of the Russian Space Agency, export
license procedures, and the role of Russian govern-
ment organizations, because most of the questions
asked by our foreign partners pertain to these areas. 1
hope my presentation has offered you a clear picture
of the organization of space activities in the Russian
Federation.
Mr. Rains: Our next speaker is Mac Evans, president
of the Canadian Space Agency. He has worked in the
Canadian Space Program for more than 22 years and
led the Canadian team that negotiated the Space
Station Inter-Governmental Agreement and Memo-
randum of Understanding in 1984. Mac Evans.
Mr. Evans: Thank you very much. It is indeed a plea-
sure to be here at this symposium to talk about the
Space Station Program. Particularly since 1 am one of
128
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
a handful of people who helped give birth to this pro-
gram more than 14 years ago, and one of the few who
are still on the Program. It gives me great pleasure to
be here to show you some of the concrete results that
have been attained in recent years, particularly in the
Canadian Program.
This is a view of the Space Station which many
of you have seen [Fig. IS-301]. You all know that the
International Space Station is the largest international
research program ever undertaken by mankind.
Thirteen countries are participating: but only the United
States, Russia, and Canada are providing infrastruc-
tures. What I want to do is show you where the
Canadian contribution is located, and it's the Mobile
Servicing System, shown here in a semi-deployed mode
attached to the mobile transporter which allows the
robotic device to travel up and down the trunk structure
to perform its assembly and maintenance tasks.
Canada's role in Space Station is to provide
the robotics and to be the predominant player in use
of these robotics for the assembly and maintenance
of the Space Station. Our contribution consists of a
large robotic arm, which we call the SSRMS, the
Space Station Remote Manipulator System [Fig. IS-
302], to distinguish it from the Shuttle Remote
Manipulator system or Canadarm. In fact, both these
devices, the SSRMS and the Canadarm located in the
shuttle, will have to work cooperatively in the assembly
of the Space Station. This robotic arm is 17 meters
long or roughly 51 feet. Unlike Canadarm, this robotic
device is designed to be repaired in space, and so it
consists of a number of ORCIs, or Orbital Replacement
Units. The unique feature of the arm is its double
ended nature; if you look at both ends of the arm
you'll see that they are identical. This allows the arm to
be able to walk about the Space Station as it grapples
onto one fixture and lets go of another — it is able to
inch worm its way along. So a key technological fea-
ture of this arm is its duality and the latching-end-
effector which makes this possible.
I'd like to now show you a few pictures of actu-
al flight hardware and you eill see that we are quite a
ways along in our program. Here you see some of the
booms that form the robotic arm [Fig. IS-303]. These
are flight booms undergoing tests at a facility in
Ottawa. We're actually building flight hardware. Here
we see another piece of flight equipment [Fig. IS-304].
This is the yaw joint, and you can see located on the
other side of the yaw joint the electronic boxes that are
used to control it.
I mentioned earlier that the latching-end-effec-
tor is perhaps the most complicated and sophisticated
mechanical unit on the arm, and this is a picture of
the flight unit [Fig. IS-305]. It's this latching-end-effec-
tor which will allow the arm to grapple onto the power
and data grapple fixtures that are located around the
Fig. IS-303
station and allow it to firmly anchor itself. It is through
this latching-end-effector and the power and data
grapple fixtures, that the control system commands
and the power to run the arm, are in fact transmitted
[Fig. IS-306J.
And here we actually see one of the flight units
of the power and data grapple fixture. Canada is sup-
plying these throughout the Station. They are installed
729
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. IS-304
Fig. IS-306
in many locations on the Station and they in fact allow
the arm to do its walking maneuvers. You can see the
probe and some of the latching mechanisms. That is
all flight hardware, and, at the present moment, our
program is the integrational test phase.
Another part of our contribution is The Mobile
Base System, the structure that the arm will sit on as it
moves up and down the trunk structure. This is an
Fig. IS-307
artist's rendition of the Mobile Base System structure
[Fig. IS-307]. It will be installed on the mobile trans-
porter NASA is supplying. It is the base for the SSRMS
as 1 indicated and it also has a significant capacity for
carrying payloads and ORGs. This is the facility that
will allow us to take ORGs out to a location on the sta-
tion that needs an ORG replaced, interchange the
ORGs and return with the defective unit. You will see
four of those power data grapple fixtures on this base.
They are used for the arm and also for some of
the ORGs. We're not quite as far along with the base
as we are with the arm. The next picture shows the
structural test article for this mobile base [Fig. IS-308].
It's a large unit. This is the qualification unit, assem-
bled; it will shortly undergo structural tests.
All of this robotics equipment has to be operat-
ed. This is a mock-up of the robotics work station and
we're showing it here in the Cupola where it will be
installed [Fig. IS-309]. The Cupola is part of node one.
NASA actually is prototyping the work station from
Canada and that is a mock-up that we have done for
NASA. So it is through a station like this that the arm
will be used for its assembly and maintenance tasks.
These statistics show where we are in the pro-
gram. We have basically finished most of our engineer-
ing and qualification articles (96 percent complete and
90 percent complete respectively); and for the RMS
itself, about 70 percent of the flight hardware is done
and for the MBS, about 50 percent. The SSRMS is to
be launched in December 1998, with the MBS being
launched in July 1999. We are way ahead of schedule
in terms of meeting those dates, and our equipment
will be finished and delivered well in advance of the
date it is required. We are not only providing hardware
for the Space Station, the next slide will show some
of the ground equipment that we are producing.
This is the Space Station's operations and sup-
port center which is located at the Canadian Space
Agency in St. Hubert in the province of Quebec [Fig.
IS-3W]. It's being shown here actually as it was being
130
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
Fig. IS-308
used during the STS-74 mission where the docking
collar was attached to the MIR Space Station. This
facility uses the same consoles that will be used at the
Mission Control Center in Houston. It will be used as a
backroom to the Mission Control Center during robotic
operations on the Space Station. As we did for STS-
74, this facility will be used to track and monitor the
next shuttle flight STS-77, which will have a Canadian
astronaut on board utilizing the Canadarm. It will be
the second flight for Dr. Marc Garneau, the first
Canadian in space.
Finally, this is another view of the Space
Station, and I just wanted to point something out here
[Fig. IS-31 1]. The Cupola where the work station will
be is located just about here on the Space Station.
And you can see that the viewing angle from there to
the trunk structure will be the primary home of the
SSRMS. This means that artificial vision systems will
be a critical component of this system. Canada has
been leading the way in vision systems used in space.
We've had several flight experiments, the most notable
being the use of the space vision system during the
docking maneuvers where the docking collar was
installed on MIR during STS-74. The artificial vision
system provided extreme accuracies in terms of align-
ment and positioning of the unit, and we're quite con-
fident that this vision system will meet the require-
ments for the operation of the SSRMS; and in fact we
are planning some additional flight experiments over
the next couple of years to test out the flight equip-
ment. The robotics components that we'll be supplying
include the base for the system, the arm itself, the
work station, and the artificial vision system that will
allow the whole system to work together. We are on
time, we are on budget.
Canada, like other nations involved in the
Space Station, a couple of years ago, went through
cost reductions driven by budgetary requirements. I'm
pleased to say that we've been able to maintain our
program within the reduced dollar values that the gov-
ernment has allocated to the program. Like Mr. Goldin
Fig. IS-309
Fig. IS-310
Wv^"*
^29<r*~
Fig.lS-311
was saying earlier today, the Space Station a few years
ago represented more than 50 percent of the Cana-
dian Space Program, it now represents about 25 per-
cent. We are still able to meet our commitments to the
international program. We are getting ready for the
Space Station year. Our hardware is almost complete,
as you have seen. Our ground facilities are being put
in place. And our scientific community is flying pre-
cursor experiments on the shuttle and on MIR. And the
131
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
latest mission to MIR delivered some of our equipment
to the Russian Space Station.
But more importantly, when I look back at
what I and many others felt at the time, was going to
be one of the most significant outcomes of the Space
Station program, namely the demonstration of the will
and the skill of a large number of nations to work
together to achieve something that we couldn't do
individually. And when 1 see what we have accom-
plished today, it is more than any of us could have
dreamed more than 12 years ago. 1 think it's a great
testimony to the international space community that
the Space Station program has survived all its difficul-
ties over these years. We have expanded the network
of nations involved. It is clearly going to be a very suc-
cessful, international science and technology and
space program. The current shuttle-MIR missions
which have taken place and the ones that are planned
are proof that the space-faring nations of the world are
capable and willing to work together for the benefit of
mankind. That will be the legacy of the Space Station.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rains: Now, I'll introduce Jim Noblitt, vice presi-
dent and general manager for Boeing, the prime con-
tractor on the Space Station who is going to talk about
the U.S. portion of the Space Station as well as give an
overview of its progress. He's the VP and the general
manager for the Boeing Defense and Space Group,
Missiles and Space Division and the president of a
subsidiary, Boeing Commercial Space Co.
Mr. Noblitt: Thank you, Lon (Rains). Good afternoon,
ladies and gentlemen.
Hardly a week goes by that 1 don't read some
report or hear a rumor about what's happening on the
Space Station program. Sometimes the news is right
on the mark, and sometimes it's off by a country mile.
Today, I'd like to give Boeing's perspective on how
things are coming along. I hope I'll be able to give you
better insight into how the program is really progress-
ing.
Not to keep you in suspense, let me say right
up front that the station is progressing very nicely. Not
perfectly — but pretty darn well.
Before I back that up with some facts and
data, let me step back a second and put my remarks
in context. Boeing, as prime contractor, is responsible
for leading the industrial team that is designing and
building U.S. portions of the station and for acquiring
the FGB from Khrunichev in Moscow. NASA, of
course, is our boss and leader of the international
team building the total station. NASA is also responsi-
ble for what we refer to as the nonprime work associat-
ed with preparing for the operation and utilization of
132
the station.
This is a computer illustration of the Inter-
national Space Station after assembly is completed in
2002. At a mass of more than 900,000 pounds, it will
be without question the largest and most capable
object ever placed in Earth orbit [Fig. IS-401].
It will be, by any measure, a world-class orbital
research facility that is safe and very user-friendly — a
facility where scientists can be highly productive.
Right now, we have a large part of the station
design completed and are well along in the fabrication
of the individual parts and components for the initial
elements. Assembly and integration activities have
begun and are picking up speed very rapidly.
Fig. IS-401— International Space Station with assembly
complete.
I can also assure you that everyone on the team
is totally dedicated to seeing it is delivered on cost and
on schedule. We believe it is essential to do so and
demonstrate to the public and our governments' that
the space community can deliver on its promises.
But no one is kidding themselves. This is an
extremely sophisticated machine. 1 sometimes
describe it as over 25 different spacecraft flying in for-
mation. We know there will be problems and are being
proactive in anticipating and dealing with them.
One area we are currently working is what we
call "horizontal integration"— the job of assuring that
the station will perform as intended once all the pieces
are assembled on-orbit. This job is complicated
because of the phased development in which individ-
ual elements are completed and launched over a four-
and-a-half year time period. As a result, we can't
assemble and check out the fully integrated station, or
even many of the units, on the ground. This means we
must be extremely rigorous in verifying that all inter-
faces are correct, prior to launch.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
We are convinced that we have the right funda
mental approach but are continuing to focus on the
detailed plans to make sure we haven't overlooked
anything. One encouraging fact is that the Russians
have done this successfully on MIR.
I'd like to spend the next few minutes telling
you where we are in getting ready for the first few
launches — the area where most of our efforts are cur-
rently focused.
The first element of the station to be launched
will be the functional energy block, or as we normally
refer to it, the FGB. It is scheduled for launch from
Baikonur on a Proton rocket in November 1997 IFia
IS-402].
This is a photo of the flight article in the
process of being outfitted with equipment at
Khrunichev in Moscow. When finished, this module will
weigh about 20 tons and provide all the propulsion,
attitude control, and power during the initial phase of
construction. It is, in fact, a completely self-sufficient
spacecraft.
Fig. IS-402— FGB flight articles
You've probably heard the reports about a
bulkhead being damaged during proof pressure test-
ing. Those reports were correct. However, that damage
has been corrected, proof pressure retesting was suc-
cessfully completed, and the unit is on schedule for
completion in November of this year. In fact, FGB
body manufacturing was actually completed three
weeks ahead of schedule.
I would add that Khrunichev is proving itself an
excellent teammate. It is doing an outstanding job in
building this unit and has my greatest respect.
This photo is of the two nodes being built in
Huntsville, Ala. Each node is 18 feet long, 14 feet
wide, and weighs about 6,000 pounds. It has six
hatches that serve as docking ports for other modules.
Fig. IS-403— Nodes 1 & 2 in factory.
The nodes are the connecting units between the vari-
ous modules and docking ports. As you can see they
have both completed initial fabrication [Fig. IS-403].
Node No. 2, on the left, is the structural test
article being used to validate the node's structural
integrity. Since this photo was taken some secondary
structural elements have been installed, and the unit is
presently in proof pressure testing at Marshall. After
testing is completed, this node will be outfitted and
become Node No. 2, which launches in October 1999.
Node No. 1, on the right, has also completed
structural assembly and secondary structural installa-
tion. It is presently being prepared for proof pressure
testing. Our schedule calls for the unit to finish initial
testing in June and be turned over to McDonnell
Douglas for outfitting. It will become the first U.S. ele-
ment launched. This will occur from Cape Kennedy in
December 1997 on the space shuttle.
Node development has proved fairly challeng-
ing with several problems encountered while building
the units. The most difficult of these occurred last fall
and winter when we were welding the large cylindrical
sections together to form the hull structures. We found
the original tooling wasn't stiff enough to hold the tight
alignment accuracies needed. So we had to redesign
the tool, and this put us a few weeks behind schedule.
Since then we have implemented work-around plans
and recovered most of our schedule slips. We still have
a way to go in catching up, and if all goes well, we will
meet the June date for turnover to McDonnell Doug-
las. I'll have more to say about this in a moment.
Another challenging area has been the common
berthing mechanism, or CBM. These units include the
power bolts that mechanically connect the various mod-
ules together. They also provide the vacuum-tight seal
needed to prevent leakage in space. There are six of
these units on each node, one at each port.
133
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
The CBM development difficulties were due to
the criticality of the functions being performed and the
complexity of the mechanism. Recently, AlliedSignal
delivered the first two actuator and control assem-
blies—the critical path item. A third unit is due shortly.
We have also redesigned the seal to correct
some earlier problems. We now have a design that
meets all our requirements and will prevent air leakage.
The current challenge is in node proof pres-
sure testing. The stress analysts are concerned that a
piece of secondary structure may, and 1 emphasize
may, yield under design loads. It's a close call. To be
safe, we have adopted a very cautious proof test
approach. If initial tests to 40 percent proof pressure
show there is a problem, we'll have to make a design
change. However, in all but the worst case we expect
to make the June completion date, and if the worst
case occurs, we'll be no more than two weeks late— a
delay that can be accommodated. In addition, we are
presently working a schedule planning exercise to see
if we can't build up some additional margin in the
node flow.
Also, on the second flight are two pressurized
mating adapters or PMAs. One of these units will con-
nect the node to the FGB and provide a pressurized
passageway between the two. The other will serve as
the shuttle docking port [Fig. IS-404J.
The slide shows the engineering test article
that was recently completed by McDonnell Douglas
and is presently undergoing test. Fabrication of the
first actual flight article has been started and is going
very well.
The third CIS. mission, for which I don't have a
slide, takes place in June 1998 after the first three
Russian missions in the spring of 1998. These Russian
missions deliver the service module, a Soyuz, and the
universal docking module to the station.
On this third
CIS. mission is
another pressur-
ized mating
adapter, the Zl
Truss with the
control moment
gyros, and the
initial Ku-Band
and S-Band
communication
gear. McDonnell
Douglas has lead
responsibility for
this mission.
Currently, the pri-
mary risk is with
the CMGs, which
Fig. IS-404— Pressurized Mating Adapter. are somewhat
Fig. IS-405— Integrated Equipment Assembly.
behind schedule in completing assembly, but no seri-
ous impacts are expected.
This slide shows the integrated equipment
assembly or IEA being assembled in Tulsa. It goes up
on the fourth mission in September 1998. Doug
Stone likes to say it's the size of a one-car garage
[Fig. IS-405].
It's being built by Rockwell and will house
much of the electrical power control system. This
includes the batteries, battery controllers, and power
distribution equipment. Also, on the flight will be the
early external thermal control system and the first pho-
tovoltaic array.
Engineering models of most of this gear have
been in development test for some time, and flight
units are now in production.
This is the solar alpha rotary joint that attaches
to the truss structure and is used to keep the station's
solar power array continuously aligned to the sun.
Lockheed Martin is building one test unit and two flight
units as a subcontractor to McDonnell Douglas. This
work is on schedule [Fig. IS-406].
Shown here is the solar array mast, which is
the structural member for the largest solar array ever.
It's built by AEC-Able under subcontract to Lockheed
Martin [Fig. IS-407}.
The mast packs into a 7-foot long canister for
storage on the shuttle. When deployed on orbit, the
array will be 108 feet long by 37 feet wide. There will be
eight such arrays on the station when it is complete.
This photo shows the two primary CIS. ele-
ments, the laboratory module and the habitation mod-
ule in the factory at MSFC. Both units are made of alu-
minum— 28 feet long, 14 feet in diameter, and each
weighing about 6,000 pounds at this stage. As you
can see, structural fabrication on both units is com-
134
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
Fig. IS-406— Solar Alpha Rotary Joints.
pleted. The laboratory module will be delivered on the
fifth U.S. mission, in November 1998. This is the mod-
ule in which most G.S. research and scientific experi-
mentation will be conducted. At present, machining
has been completed, and mechanical equipment is
being installed in the laboratory [Fig. IS-408J.
The top concern is associated with delivery of
simulation software, which in turn affects development
of the flight software. This area is also receiving con-
siderable attention.
Fig. IS-407— Solar Array Mast.
The Hab, where the astronauts will eat and
sleep, will undergo some machining and initial testing.
Then it will be set aside to be processed later in the
program. It isn't scheduled for launch until February
2002, one of the last units to be launched.
I put this slide in to make sure everyone knows
what the station will look like at the completion of
Phase II in March 1999. At this point, it will be func-
tioning as the orbital research facility [Fig. IS-409].
Another activity that's very important to the
Fig. IS-408—Lab and Hab Modules.
International Space Station program is the Phase I
Shuttle-MIR program. The missions are providing two
direct, invaluable benefits. First, they are giving G.S.
astronauts hands-on experience flying on a real space
station. I'm sure Shannon Lucid will have a lot of expe-
rience and ideas to share when she returns, as did
Norm Thagard [Fig. IS-410J.
Second, the missions are providing an opportu-
nity to test equipment in orbit and see what works best.
The knowledge from both these activities is being used
to design a whole lot better station than would be pos-
sible without the Shuttle-MIR missions.
Fig. IS-409— International Space Station at Phase II Completion
The bottom line is that the International Space
Station is making excellent progress toward the first
launch in November 1997 and the launches that will
follow. Yes, we have encountered some problems and
will face many more in the months ahead. That's to be
expected on a program as large and complex as Space
Station. But the really good news is that the team has
135
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Fig. IS-41 0— MIR- 1 docking chute with Shuttle.
been able to overcome every problem, to meet every
challenge. I'm confident that, by working together as a
unified team toward a common vision and with fierce
determination, we will surmount whatever obstacles we
encounter. I am equally confident we will produce a
magnificent orbital research facility, within the cost and
on the schedule that has been committed [Fig. IS-41 1J.
Thank you for you attention.
Fig. IS-41 1— Earth view through the Copula of the ISS.
Mr. Rains: Our next speaker is Mike Wynne, the vice
president and general manager for Lockheed Martin
Astronautics and Space Systems. He is responsible for
Atlas and Centaur and was recently assigned responsi-
bility for the Lockheed Martin Launch Vehicle and the
multi-service launch system. And he also just returned
from Russia where he was there for the first commer-
cial Proton launch.
Mr. Wynne: Thank you very much, Lon. It gives me
great pleasure to represent all those designers, engi-
neers and production people at Lockheed Martin who
put together this array of launch vehicles, as well as
Khrunichev Space Center, builders of the Proton, who
we proudly count in our product area [Fig. IS-501J.
The subject of my talk today is expendable
launch vehicles and their trends. This slide [Fig. IS-
502] presents a Lockheed Martin perspective on U.S.
launch vehicles and trends. Existing families of ex-
pendable launch vehicles are evoving to a more effi-
cient fleet of expendable vehicles while technology is
being developed to demonstrate the feasibility of a fully
reusable system. This development should permit the
introduction of an RLV vehicle in the 2010 time frame.
My next chart presents a summary of the inter-
national competitive environment and the response
that we're trying to bring to the marketplace [Fig. IS-
503]. At the top of the chart is the array of launch vehi-
cles associated with Lockheed Martin and Khrunichev
Fig. IS-501
Space Center through our subsidiary for sales,
International Launch Services. International Launch
Services markets the Proton launch vehicle, and I'm
proud to say that I was present for the first, which 1
think was an historic event, launch of the Astra IF
Satellite for Luxemburg, from the Baikonur
Cosmodrome. This demonstrates that what we are try-
ing to do is provide flexibility to the commercial.
Our customers have a variety of requirements.
You read about them, you see them, you understand
them from a launch perspective [Fig. IS-504]. There's
no doubt that vehicle ugprades and greater cost effi-
ciency is a tenet of the commercial space satellite
industry. That must go hand in hand, however, with
improved reliability and greater performance. The
customer expects 100 percent mission success and
flexibility, but the bottom line is the industry wants
lowest cost, on time, and reliable launch.
This is a graphic view of the Lockheed Martin's
fleet of launch vehicles [Fig. IS-505]. And though we
are working on the laws of physics, we have not per-
formed quite as well as this chart might indicate. To
136
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
U.S. Launch Vehicles and Trends
( Shutlki □□□t^> Contmuin 5
^
Fig. IS-502
Today's ELV Competitive Environment
w
4 '}
Pegasus |
7
c_— ~
j
■
r
^mily ra(i[us
[I
An
Fa
anefV
n,ly
H!
Long March
Family
Fig. IS-503
correct the chart, the MSLS performance is to low-
Earth orbit, not GTO as shown. The commercial
Proton, as you can see, fits nicely into this family. The
other one that I'll go into more depth on is the Atlas
IIAR, which is variously referred to as the Atlas Re-engi-
neering program, or the Russian engine application.
Our response to meet the customer's require-
ments is through investment and the ability to increase
performance at the same or lower cost is a tenet of
our investment [Fig. 1S-506]. We are investing, not
only in the Lockheed Martin launch vehicle family of
three vehicles, but also in the Atlas II AR and in the
evolved expendable launch vehicle program. Second,
improvements must be transparent to the customer.
We are a current provider of launch vehicles, and
therefore need to provide the same characteristics and
environments to our spacecraft customers that we
have now. We are working to reduce costs by improv-
ing our launch vehicle processing facilities and the
launch procedures. We realize that schedules are extra-
ordinarily important to satellite manufacturers and their
community of users as they must meet performance
guarantees. There is no doubt that 100 percent mis-
sion success is the crowning achievement of launch
Customer Requirements
• "Refreshment" & Greater Cost
Efficiency
• Improved Reliability & Greater
Performance
• Highest Reliability at Lowest Cost
• Schedule Reliability & Ontime
Launch— Reliability Is a Qualification
of Past Performance
• Faster. Cheaper, Better
• Flexibility
• 100% Mission Success
W
^^PP^PS?!
Fig. IS-504
Lookh&fed Martin's Fleet of Launch Vehicles
^
I J
a
ilii
I li
I
ii
Hi
LEO LEO
16 !3D
LEO LEO- LEO 45,000
I9QO0 20000 GTO 9.000
GtO- GTO- 10.IBQ
S 150 B.fiOO CS0 4 400
LEO 39 100
*? *00
GTO- (Ecjui*^
mlPeilr,,™.;.,.. a,, a, ^..mK^,
milinn.U.imr.1.^,,..
Fig. IS-505
^¥
Our Response
• Ability To Increase Performance at the Same or Lower Cost
• Improvements Transparent to the Customer
• Equivalent/Improved Spacecraft Environments
• Synergy & Commonality Across Systems & Components Is Key to Cost
Efficiencies
• Improved Launch Processing Facilities & Procedures Critical To
Reducing Cost of Space Transportation
• Responsive to Customer Schedules
• Flexibility
• Reliable & Ontime Launch Is Critical to Program Success-
New Orders Follow Successful Launches
■ 100% Mission Success
Wrv«y<wOrt»ftD > 1vMOurt<¥»t B^>vl»w>,Ev < warm
Fig. IS-506
vehicles, and we work very, very hard to make sure that
happens. Delivery-on-orbit drives our quality at every
level and at every step as we try to be the best in
space.
I'd like to go into just a little depth of where we
are headed with the Atlas II AR program, and bring
you a little bit of insight [Fig. IS 507]. Atlas II AR pro-
gram has a baseline performance of 8,600 pounds to
137
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Atlas Evolution
Atlas HAS
. [ GTO P/L
8.150 ftm
• 4 Caslor
VA
SR«(
■ 2MA-5A Boottf
Engtn**
- IIM-M
Eng.r*
■ * SM0fl
CMM-
• Keep* Aila* Competitive
• EnaMeaEELV
fig. /S-507
international Cooperation
• Forms the Basis of Our Future
- International Customers & Markets—
PALAPA, Inmarsat, SAX . . .
- International Launch Fleet— Proton
Complements Our Launch Fleet To
Expand Global Launch Services
- Partnership with Pratt & Whitney & NPO
Energmash (Russian Space Agency) on
Rocket Engine Development for IIAR
• Expands Our Marketplace & Theirs
• Provides Enhanced Launch Availability &
Automatic Launcher Diversity for Our
Customers
• Combines the Best in Technology To Provide
Efficiency for Access to Space
Combining the Best To Bring
Our Customers the Bast Product*
w
Fig. IS-508
international Cooperation
IF
w
First Commercial Proton Successfully Launched Astra IF
Communications Satellite April 9, 1996
A Combined Russian, American & European Team Made
Space History with the First Launch of a Western Satellite on
a Russian Rocket from Baikonur Cosmodrome in the
Republic of Kazakhstan
■ Proton Vehicle Is Manufactured by Khrunichev State
Research and Production Space Center Facilities in Moscow
■ Satellite Built by Hughes Space and Communications
Company in
El Segundo, California
■ Proton Has Served As the Primary Heavy-Lift Vehicle for
Russian Unmanned Space Program Since the Mid-1960s in
More Than 230 Launches
• ILS International Launch Services (ILS), a Joint-Venture
Company of Lockheed Martin Corporation & Russian
Companies (Khrunichev & RSC Energia), Was Formed in 1995
To Jointly Market the Proton & American-Built Atlas Launch
Vehicles
Fig. IS-509
GTO. It moves from four castors, two MA5A booster
engines, one sustainer engine, to two RL 10's on the
Atlas II AS to one RL 10 engine, and one RD180
engine. This simplification has dramatic impact on
improved operability and reliability. But we're not stop-
ping there. We're moving to a goal of 9,600 pounds to
GTO with the application of two solid motor based on
the Atlas heritage. The Atlas II AR's will still use one
RL10 engine, and one RD180, but dramatically simpli-
fies our move up the curve of performance and relia-
bility. This vehicle will be available in the year 2000.
This Atlas II AR will be available and has been sold for
launch in December of 1998. Our purpose is to keep
Atlas competitive world-wide, and of course, to enable
our competitive posture in the evolved expendable
launch vehicle program.
Now I'd like to expand upon the bottom of this
rocket, which is our relationship in the international
community [Fig. IS-508]. It is appropriate that we are
on this panel today with the International Space
Station and the Russian Space Agency, because the
world of launch vehicles has dramatically moved from
domestic to international applications. The basis of our
future is international cooperation. It is interesting to
note that the first Atlas launches this year are for
Palapa for the Indonesians, Inmarsat and Sax for the
Italians, which should please Prof. Vallerani very much.
Our international cooperation is currently focused in
two areas. First, Proton complements our launch fleet
to expand our global launch services. Second is our
partnership with Pratt & Whitney and NPO
Energomash, which is a Russian space company, as
Dr. Kuznetsov indicated, developing a rocket engine for
the Atlas II AR. International cooperation has the bene-
fit of expanding our marketplace and theirs in a dra-
matic and complimentary way. It provides enhanced
launch availability and automatic launcher diversity to
our customers. Finally, it combines the best in technol-
ogy to provide efficiencies in the access to space.
Introducing the Proton to the commercial mar-
ketplace through our International Launch Services
company has been an adventure [Fig. IS-509].
Lockheed/Khrunichev Energia (LKE) is the Proton
marketing joint venture similar to Commercial Launch
Services (CLS) which has been marketing the Atlas
program. When combined, they form the International
Launch Services team. It is interesting that, though
we've been working collectively on this for some time,
we did not realize how well we had established the
International Launch Services name in the market-
place. At the recent Proton launch of the SES Satellite,
one of the board members turned to our COO, Dr.
Vance Coffman, and said, "What is Lockheed Martin
doing here?" It was probably the wrong guy to say that
to, but Dr. Coffman was pretty pleased at the end of
the day that we had established the ILS name in such
a rapid fashion.
Now a brief look into the RD180 [Fig. IS-510].
I think you all heard the basis of our search from Mr.
Goldin's comments— that America has not invested in
rocket propulsion in some 25 years. However, we
found that the Russian space companies had in fact
been working on and enhancing space propulsion, and
138
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
could provide U.S. propulsion a leap ahead. The
RD180 is really a "Freddy Krueger" approach to
engine design, in that it is one-half of an RD170 with
re-sized pumps and auxiliaries. What you see here are
some of the new design and manufacturing products
that have been completed by MPO Energomash and
Pratt & Whitney.
We will co -produce the RD180 in Russia and
the U.S., as was indicated by Dr. Kuznetsov [Fig. IS-
511]. Through his efforts and those of the Russian
Space Agency we have been cleared for co-production
which will establish a solid industry base for ourselves
and NPO Energomash. It's a great partnership. We've
got a long way to go, but trust and teamwork have
been the hallmark of this partnership. Together with
the Russian government, we know that we're going
to make an interesting mark in the history of space
to come.
In summary, the merger of commercial and
government business practices is key to U.S. launch
vehicles' success in the future [Fig. 1S-512J. We have
a wonderful, cooperative spirit from the U.S. Air
Force and throughout NASA to allow the success that
we have had in the Atlas and Titan programs. There's
no doubt in our mind that continued launch success
qualifies the market; schedule reliability and cost is
what wins new business. The U.S. government's sup-
port for the broad-based technology elements that
you see here, including the RLV, has been marvelous.
Our future is bright, the forecast is good, satisfaction
of our customer demands and requirements is our
objective. Our goal is to be the best in space. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Rains: Our last speaker is Tom Rogers, and I know
Tom wanted me to keep everything short, and keep his
introduction short. He's the president of the Space
Transportation Association, and I know he's got a lot
he wants to say about space tourism.
Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Rains. Thank you, ladies
and gentlemen. A short time ago, I was asked by the
people here for the title of my paper. I quoted a presi-
dent of the United States and now I find myself last on
the agenda; there may be some causal relationship
between the two. I quoted Harry Truman. He was
asked at retirement by an enterprising reporter, "What
was the most difficult thing, Mr. President, that you
had to deal with when you were president of the
United States?" — thinking that he had had to deal with
Joseph Stalin, thinking he had had to deal with the
dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. He said, "Getting people to do what the hell
they ought to have sense enough to do without my
telling them." And that's the title of my talk today. The
subtitle is "Space Tourism."
1995 RD-1 80 Accomplishments
^
RD-1 80
(RO-170 Derivative)
■ LOX Kerosene
• High Performance
• Throttieabie
• U.S. Coproduclion
RD-1B0 Migh-Fideltly Mock up
■ 70% Actual Components
RD-180 LOX Pump Water Testing
- 75% Efficiency Estimated from Two Tests
Fig. 1S-510
W
U.S. Coproduction of the RD-180 Engine
• Strategic Partnership with Pratt & Whitney for Rocket Engines
■ Engines Will Be Manufactured by a Joint Venture of NPO Energomash & Pratt &
Whitney
■ Development 1 Production ol Engines Will Be Performed by NPO Energomash in
Khimky (Moscow Region). Russia
• Russian Government Supports the Manufacture of the RD-180 Engine in the U.S.
4 the Use of the Engines To Fly U.S. Government Payloads
• As Required by the DOD Policy, Second-Source Qualification & Coproduction
(Including Acceptance Testing) by Pratt & Whitney in West Palm Beach, Florida,
Will Support U.S. Government Payloads
■ The RD-180 Engine U.S. Qualification & Coproduction Plan Fully Supports USAF
& Lockheed Martin EELV & Atlas Program Plan
• Establishes a Solid Industry Base for Russia & U.S.
• Fusion of U.S. & Russian Technology for Atfas IIAR
Fig.lS-511
Summary
^
Merger of Commercial & Government Business Practices Is
Key to U.S. Launch Vehicle Success
Continued Launch Success Qualifies the Market: Schedule
Reliability and Cost Wins New Business
U.S. Space Command Cooperation Has Been Excellent in
Helping Our Industry Plan & Execute Full Manifest
U.S. Government Support for Broad-Base Technology
Enhancement Has Brought Positive Industry Response
Our Future Is Bright. Forecast Is Good, with Satisfaction of
Customer Demands & Requirements Our Objective
Common Core Concept
Our Goal I* To Be the BMt In Space
Fig. IS-512
In 1996, Herman Kahn, one of the great schol-
ars of the nuclear age, and I were talking in OSD,
which is where I was at the time, and we came to two
conclusions. The first was that we could not see that
we would outlive the Cold War. And the second — recall
that this was in the midst of the Mercury, Gemini,
139
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Apollo era— was that as soon as that war came to an
end, all of this space technology would be used to get
people up into space. Everybody wanted to go to
space. Wrong. 1 did outlive the Soviet Union. Wrong.
We're not sending people to space unless they are
government employees.
Now, why consider space tourism today? There
are four reasons. The first: There is a very large busi-
ness potential in the carrying of people to and from
space for short visits. The best estimates that we have
today is that this business could amount to some 10
billions of dollars per year in gross revenues. Non-triv-
ial. That is the amount of money in direct space relat-
ed gross revenues in the entire satellite communica-
tions business today, including launch.
The second reason: What a wonderful market
to add to the public market for the X33 follow-on vehi-
cle-fleet market aspirations. That vehicle fleet will have
to be privately financed, and therefore we will have to
attract Wall Street investment of very large sums of
money. And 1 can't help but believe that it will be very,
very important under those circumstances to have a
very large, straightforward, private sector market.
The third: The Japanese are very deeply and
actively engaged in the pursuit of the space tourism
business. They have been at it now for about three or
four years. 1 know some of the principals doing this
work there, and they are working very, very hard.
Let me show you the first viewgraph [Fig. IS-
601 j. It's the one that looks a bit like an acorn. That is
the first conceptual design in Japan of a vehicle that
would be designed to carry people to and from space.
Quite different from anything that we see here to date.
The next view graph shows two kinds of seating
arrangements they are giving thought to [Fig. IS-602].
We see nothing like this in the United States today. Nor
do 1 know of any plans for seeing such things as this.
Who are these people? They came from: ALL Nippon
Airways, Fuji Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy
Industries, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nissan Motor
Co., Shimizu,
etc. Non-trivial.
How can
1 be reasonably
sure that there
could be a mar-
ket of $10 bil-
lion a year
gross revenues
in the space
tourism area?
Because the
Japanese have
done some-
thing that has
never been
done before in the space tourism area: they've con-
ducted market surveys. The first one was conducted in
Japan over two years ago, and they asked, "How many
people would be willing to pay how much, to do what,
under what circumstances?" — and from that, derived
the revenue figures. At that time 1 was convinced that
the United States should conduct such a survey, and
set out to try to see it come about, and I failed.
Subsequently a survey was conducted of the United
States market by the same Japanese interests. The
results that they found were quite similar in most fun-
damental respects to what they had found in Japan.
Now as to the fourth reason. There is one thing
that, over a long period of time, 1 have failed to per-
suade the NASA administrator of. I'm going to keep on
working on him because he's smart enough and he will
learn, and then we'll be off to the races. Of all the
things which Dan spoke about here earlier today, that
UPPER DECK
IOWERDECK
Fig. IS-601
Fig. IS-602
NASA is doing and might do in space, all of the goals
and objectives, let me ask you: which of them would
you judge to be quintessential American goals? I
would suggest to you: none. By the way, I'm a physi-
cist, I love some of them. I'm a communications engi-
neer. I love some of the others. But I'm also American,
and I would suggest that by far the most important fed-
eral civil space goal, and indeed the most important
national goal in space, is to see space opened up to
the general public. E pluribus unum. One among
many. We the people. By the people, of the people, for
the people. I'm not speaking chauvinistically. I'm speak-
ing of the American character and relating it to space
activities.
We Americans, when we find something that is
interesting enough to us and important enough to us,
140
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
NASA BUDGET
1997 Dollars
Fig. IS-603
want to
engage in it
directly, per-
sonally. We
do it all the
time. Mew
highways,
new
schools.
But not in
space. Mot
in space. It
is the con-
sidered and
continued
position of
our friendly federal government that the general public
should not aspire to enter space. In my view, that is
not simply a mistake, it is an out and out blunder.
May I have the last viewgraph, please [Fig. IS-
603 from Space Mews, page 1, March 25, 1996]? Look
what's projected by the president of the Gnited States
for the MASA budget for the years 1998, 1999, and
2000. The first curve, the top one, is for a year ago.
The second, this year. If you include a loss of purchas-
ing power of some 3 percent per annum, by the year
2000 the federal civil space program will be reduced in
purchasing power by 25 percent. If that persists for a
decade, it will be down to 40 percent. Mow I hope that
we can get a lot more bang for the buck, as Dan is
talking about, but I really don't think that we are going
to be better off with a civil space program expenditure
of $6 billion. And by the way, that last curve was laid
out by the president of the Gnited States in a presiden-
tial election year where he is very, very careful to
choose his enemies, and to probe very, very sophisti-
catedly in selecting his soft spots in the body politic.
Why is this? I listen to Dan Goldin, and Dan
waxes eloquently about all of the wonderful, exciting
and interesting things that could go on, and finds large
numbers of people a good part of the time who are
interested in these sorts of things, and he talks about
the stories in the newspapers and in the magazines.
But there is no way to translate those vital intangibles,
and I will agree that over the longer term they are vital
to a quantitative exposition of an annual budget of $14
billion, or $1.4 billion or $0.14 billion dollars. We must
really understand that what has been going on for the
past 10 to 20 years, is that the things which the federal
government has chosen to do in our civil space pro-
gram simply do not interest enough of the general
public. The money is not coming from a Medici prince.
It is not coming from Lorenzo the Magnificent, but
from taxpayers, who must decide, each time, what is
the value of the next dollar to be spent: criminal justice
system improvement, education improvement, air traf-
fic control improvement, the delivery of health ser-
vices, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid . . . and
when you compare these with what the federal govern-
ment chooses to do in space — however interesting it is
to scientists, technology developers, and engineers—
our present civil space activities just do not find
enough appeal in the American general public.
Space tourism would find such an appeal.
There is no question about it. A few space-related polls
were conducted in the Gnited States in the 1980s of a
slightly different character than most of the others.
One further question was asked in three polls in the
Gnited States and one in the G.K. After asking all of
the usual questions, "What do you think about space?
What do you think about what the government is
doing in space?" — one other question was asked,
"What do you want to do about space?" And the
answer then was — and it's been born out by the
Japanese market studies in Japan and the Gnited
States since then — that 40 percent to 45 percent of
the American adult population said, "I want to take a
trip to space. "
I submit that considerations of space — busi-
ness, space transportation development improvement,
competition from abroad, and expression of our
national character — should see us building a space
tourism business and thereby opening up space to the
general public.
Late last year a formal agreement was reached
between MASA and the Space Transportation Assoc-
iation. We are working cooperatively to address the
question, "What should our country do to position itself
to see a large space tourism business come into
being?" We've been at it now for several months. We
have a steering group now nearly completely identified,
we are working on internal papers and you will be hear-
ing something about it in the not too distant future.
Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon.
Q&A
Mr. Rains: If I could get all of our speakers to come sit
at the table now, we've got a number of good ques-
tions. Our first question is for Dr. Kuznetsov. Can you
say anything to ease concerns in the Gnited States
about Russia's commitment to the International Space
Station program?
Dr. Kuznetsov: Within recent months, several events
have taken place which clearly show that Russia will
fulfill all of its commitments in the International Space
Station Program. Last month the program status was
reviewed by Russian Prime Minister Victor
Chernomyrdin, who visited the Khrunichev Center for a
detailed study of the project. The conclusion made by
141
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
the prime minister is contained in his letter to Vice
President Al Gore which was sent early April.
Mr. Rains: Could you also please comment with
regard to whether Russia will be on time with its pro-
duction of its hardware for the Space Station?
Russia will fulfill all of its commitments in the
International Space Station Program. Last month
the program status was reviewed by
Russian Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin,
who visited the Khrunichev Center for a detailed
study of the project.
Dr. Kuznetsov: Recently the schedules were reviewed
once again. It was evident that whatever deviations
from the master schedule were observed, they were
normal. They were deviations which typically occur in
programs. So we ensure that the schedules will be
maintained and met.
Mr. Rains: I'm going to skip around a little bit here
and change topics. Tom Rogers, for you, in an era of
increasing liability and lawsuits, what do you perceive
as the insurance obstacles to space tourism, and are
they prohibitive?
Mr. Rogers: That's one of the questions that we're
going to be addressing in the study. By the way, that
allows me to make an observation that I trust is impor-
tant. We are seemingly committed to the use of the
shuttle fleet and the Space Station to making inquiries
into the physical and the life sciences. I'm for that. But
we ought to be making inquiries in areas that lead to
more commercial and industrial businesses as well.
There are many, many questions such as the insur-
ance question, questions of fear, questions of food,
questions of clothing, questions of all kinds that need
to be addressed in an ongoing professional R&D
fashion, and I believe that the study will articulate
many of these and will suggest things that the country
should do to address them.
design. I think the reality was that there were cost and
financial concerns that the administration believed
needed to be addressed. What has happened during
the program is that the overall cost of the program has
been capped. The annual costs that were headed
towards $3.5 billion a year have been capped at $2. 1
billion a year. So 1 believe that we've come up with a
program and design that meets all the original expec-
tations, but at the same time lives within some cost
realities that are essential for any program to live with-
in. 1 would say that the program is as good as the
Freedom program, and is a more affordable program.
In addition I would point out that with the inclusion of
the Russians in the program and the addition of their
international participation, we've brought a lot more
experience into the program that's been beneficial in a
variety of ways.
Mr. Rains: OK, another Space Station question — and
Jim, if you could handle this one, too. When will the
first crew board the International Space Station, and
what kind of specialists and scientists will get to go?
Mr. Noblitt: The first astronaut has been selected. Bill
Shepherd is already in Moscow training as the first
CIS. astronaut. I believe both the Russian astronauts
for the first crew have also been selected. 1 believe they
go up in about May of 1998— that's about the right
time frame — aboard one of the three Russian launch-
es. I believe it's the third one when the space vehicle
acually comes up to the station so they have a crew
return capability. They won't have much scientific
capability at that point, but they will have astronauts
on board at that time.
Mr. Rains: OK, I just want to follow that up a little bit.
I'd like Professor Vallerani and Dr. Kuznetsov and you
to all answer this: Has it been settled yet what the
makeup of the early crews will be as far as nationali-
ties? Has that question been resolved? How many peo-
ple from each country?
Mr. Noblitt: The No. 1 crew has been selected. It will
be two Russians and one G.S., 1 believe.
Mr. Rains: I've got another Space Station question.
I'm going to direct this one to Jim Noblitt. I think that
the person that asked this is talking about Space
Station Freedom, and the question is, were the initial
designs of the Space Station flawed or improved or
were all of the delays of a political nature?
Mr. Noblitt: Well, I don't think that the design was
flawed. I think we found a way to improve on that
Dr. Kuznetsov: Unfortunately I am not involved per-
sonally in selecting the crews for the Space Station
project, so it's hard for me to answer.
Prof. Vallerani: The other partners will be allowed to
provide their own astronaut. If we just look to the
Italian situation as part of our agreement, we have
assured the presence of the Italian astronaut in the
operational work, but downstream.
142
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
Mr. Noblitt: Yes, I think you need to recognize that the
first few missions are primarily U.S. and Russian mis-
sions, so you would expect the predominant number
of astronauts then to be operating the U.S. equipment
and the Russian equipment. Later on downstream, I
think you would find that more and more European,
Canadian, and Japanese astronauts would be aboard.
Mr. Rains: Somebody just asked if the Space Station
is geosynchronous, and no, it's not. Not by a long
shot. For Mike Wynne, how does the Titan IV program
fit into Lockheed Martin's EELV development effort?
Mr. Wynne: In providing assured access to space, the
Titan IV program is really a foundation element. I think
the challenge is to find better, faster, and cheaper ways
to do that project, but clearly the goal of the evolved
launch vehicle is to provide heavy lift through a modu-
lar approach and common core approach to that pro-
ject. So we have great respect for the customers out
there in the Titan IV area, and we intend to provide
them, as well as our other customers, assured access
in the late 2000s.
Mr. Rains: To Dr. Kuznetsov, there is a commercial
launcher called Rocket. It is a cooperative arrangement
between Germany and Russia. It has been successfully
launched three times from Baikonur, I understand. Will
it also be launched from Plesex?
Dr. Kuznetsov: What took place at Baikonur had
nothing to do with Russian-German activities. That
was just a test flight. Commercial launches will also be
made from Plessetsk, however the existing launch pad
will have to be modified so that the vehicle could be
launched from the ground surface rather than from a
silo.
a way to increase efficiency. We say that between the
combination of centralizing the NASA structure at
Johnson and bringing us in with an Integrated Product
Team approach, we were able to cut the cost between
20 percent and 30 percent on the program. I think it
really is proving true. Teams work very, very efficiently.
We're big believers in them, as a lot of our partners are
on Space Station, and it increases the communication,
gets you a lot higher probability of taking into consid-
eration the operational aspects, the manufacturing
aspects when you design the original product and pro-
ducing it right the first time at a lower cost. We're very
much fans of Integrated Product Teams.
We do what a lot of people call an Integrated
Product Team approach, where all the specialists
associated with one product area are located
together and work together in a unified fashion
to make sure the end product meets the
requirements and expectations.
Mr. Rains: For Dr. Kuznetsov, could you please discuss
or explain the relationship between the Russian Space
Agency and Energia?
Dr. Kuznetsov: The relation between Russian Space
Agency and the Energia Corporation (Russian Space
Corporation Energia) are similar to those between
NASA and the Boeing. The only difference is that one
of the board members of Energia is a representative of
the Russian Space Agency and he has the right to vote
based on the RSAs shares, i.e., Government shares, in
Energia. We are Energia's main customer. Our rela-
tions are governed by the contracts that we mutually
sign. We pay them for the products they develop for
us.
Mr. Rains: Jim, I'm going to throw this one to you.
There's an acronym in here I'm not familiar with, but it
says, please discuss Boeing's experience with the IPT
organizational structure adopted for the International
Space Station program.
Mr. Noblitt: The term is Integrated Product Teams. I
do know what it means. Basically, one of the real
emphases in trying to downscale the program and fit
within a cost cap of $2. 1 billion was working together.
That's one of the things that we have really stressed.
We do what a lot of people call an Integrated Product
Team approach, where all the specialists associated
with one product area are located together and work
together in a unified fashion to make sure the end
product meets the requirements and expectations. It's
Mr. Rains: To anyone who can answer the question,
will the International Space Station use a common
telemetry protocol? If so, will it use the NASA CCSDS
telemetry protocol pocket processing system?
Mr. Noblitt: Not me. Can anyone out in the audience
answer that question? I'm sorry.
Mr. Rains: OK, I have a question that I'd like each of
our panelists to address, and that is, thinking about
what Tom Rogers had to say, would each of you assess
what you consider to be the near-term potential of
space tourism, and is it a business opportunity?
Mr. Rogers: Are you asking me, Lon?
143
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Mr. Rains: No. I already know what you think, Tom.
You're excluded.
Mr. Rains: I'd like to do a follow-up there and ask
when your prices are going to come down.
Mr. Wynne: Since Tom was so kind as to be excluded,
I would say that when the era of reusable launch vehi-
cles dawns out in the year 2010 to 2020, the concept
of seating as you saw across the many Apollo capsules
may actually come into being. Until we conquer that
aspect of physics, the aspect of space tourism is very
limited. So I would say the near term would be 2020,
and perhaps if we can do the reusable launch sooner,
that will be the foundation technology that would allow
tickets to be sold.
Mr. Noblitt: I think 1 could subscribe to Tom's vision. I
think, like Mike, it would probably be a question of
when. What's the timing involved in it? There are a lot
of technologies that have to be put in place. There are
a lot of activities that have to be accomplished. There
is some good news, however, in the whole idea, and
that is that it is potentially a very large market that
would provide a lot of revenue. And any business orga-
nization finds that attractive. The question is, what is it
going to cost to develop the capability and when will
you have the technology to do it? I have seen some
of the presentations that were made by the Japanese
companies. I know Shimizu was at one time talking
about 2050 as a target when they would have a hotel
in space, which is a little more ambitious than what
Tom showed.
Mr. Evans: I don't pretend to be an expert on this mat-
ter. But I have given it some thought and 1 do believe
that such a market exists. The question is when. I hon-
estly believe that if someone were to invest in changing
space hab or space lab or something like that into a
personnel carrier, there are enough very rich people
around the world who would pay the price to go.
Dr. Kuznetsov: We have some experience in the area
of space tourism. Well, what I mean is the launch of a
Japanese journalist in the Soyuz vehicle. We have not
had any more applications since that flight.
Dr. Kuznetsov: The more launches, the lower the
prices.
Prof. Vallerani: I believe, conservatively speaking,
space tourism does have a great attraction because it
brings men into the scene, and whenever this is possi-
ble, I believe that sooner or later mankind will just
embark on these types of activities. I remember that
already 10 years ago I was asked by an interpreter
from the United States if it was possible to transform
our space lab models that we were designing at that
time to carry 20 people on board. We did a very brief, I
won't say study, but a very brief survey of what was
possible and we got our response: It was indeed possi-
ble and feasible. The only problem, of course, was the
cost of the transportation and the overall policy of
authorizing. So sooner or later, in my opinion, this will
happen. And it's really a difficult guess when this is
going to happen.
Mr. Rogers: I was addressing a seminar of young
space students about six months or a year ago, and
they must have been engineers. I started beating up
on them, saying, "Let's go for it. Let's move it. Let's
move it!" And finally they asked, "Gee, what are you
beating on us so hard for, Mr. Rogers?" I said, "Think.
At your age, you have a 50/50 chance of living two or
three times my age. At my age, I have a 50/50 chance
of living 10 percent more of my life. I'm in a hurry!
That's the first thing. The second thing, more serious,
I think we will see tourism begin with sub-orbital trips.
I think we'll see people going up 30, 40, 50 miles, stay
up there 10 minutes, and we'll gradually boot strap our
way along. It will be some time before we have large
hotels in orbit.
Mr. Rains: OK. I'd like to thank all of our speakers.
And I'd also like to thank all of you for sticking it out
with us this afternoon.
144
NEW STRATEGIC VISION FOR SPACE POLICY AND PROGRAMS
Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner Presentation-
New Strategic Vision for Space Policy and Programs
Introduction: General James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.) Featured
Chairman of the Board Speaker:
U.S. Space Foundation
Joseph Gorman
Chairman & CEO
TRW Inc.
Gen. Hill: Well, the man we're going to be introduc-
ing to you — who until just recently controlled what
kind of credit card you could get, because of the TRW
credit thing — is a person who heads up one of the
quality enterprises in America. It is my pleasure to
introduce this evening's distinguished speaker, Mr.
Joseph T. Gorman.
Joe Gorman is chairman and chief executive
officer of TRW Inc. He was elected to this position in
December 1988 after serving as president and chief
operating officer since 1985. TRW is a leading provider
of automotive, space, and defense systems worldwide.
The company is the world's largest independent sup-
plier of occupant restraint systems, steering systems,
engine components, and engineered fasteners and is a
leading producer of automotive electronics. For space
and defense markets, TRW is a leader in spacecraft
and space systems, avionic surveillance systems and
software based systems for defense and commercial
markets. Mr. Gorman is a trustee of the Committee
for Economic Development and is a member of The
Business Roundtable's policy committee, the Council
on Competitiveness, and the President's Export
Council. In 1994 he received Japan's Prime Minister's
Trade Award for his contributions to promoting
improved U.S. trade relations. Mr. Gorman holds a
Bachelor of Arts from Kent State University and a
LL.B. from Yale Law School. A very warm welcome to
Mr. Gorman as he comes up to the podium.
Mr. Gorman: Thank you very much. I appreciate that
very gracious introduction.
This evening, I had the distinct pleasure of sit-
ting next to Gen. Joseph Ashy's wife, better known as
Sue. She said, 'Joe, as you go up there tonight,
remember the definition of a good speech. It has a
good beginning, a good ending, and they are very
close together." I'll try to live up to this at this late hour.
I am indeed honored to be with you this
evening and to be asked to share some of my
thoughts regarding a new strategic vision for our space
policies and programs. The good news about this sub-
ject, of course, is that we have a rich and highly envi-
able record about which we can be enormously proud:
all of our space accomplishments. The bad news is
that we have absolutely nothing on the horizon that
even remotely resembles a comprehensive, credible,
affordable, strategic vision or plan designed to help the
United States achieve its critical goals in a rapidly and
vastly changing world.
Moreover, in the beginning stages of contem-
plating this task, we must be particularly mindful of
one of H.L. Mencken's admonitions. He said that for
every complex problem there is a simple solution — and
it is wrong. For we naturally view space issues as part
of a much larger set of interrelated issues that face this
country and, indeed, the entire world. It is critically
important at the outset to understand the massive and
profound transformational changes that are taking
place all around us and that indeed will drive much of
what we do for the future. It is especially important to
focus on the implications of those changes, the impli-
cations for the world, the implications for the United
States, and, yes, the implications for space strategies
and programs.
Now, in this dimension a lot of very good peo-
ple, over many years, have missed the mark badly.
Allow me a few illustrative quotes. "Heavier-than-air fly-
ing machines are impossible." — Lord Kelvin, President
Royal Society, 1895. "Everything that can be invented
has been invented."— Charles Duell, director of the G.S.
Patent Office, 1899. "Sensible and responsible women
do not want to vote." — Graver Cleveland, 1905. "There
is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the
atom." — Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner in physics,
1923. "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" — Harry
M. Warner, Warner Brothers Pictures, 1927. And finally,
"Babe Ruth made a big mistake when he gave up
pitching." — Tris Speaker, 1921.
What then would be some of the examples of
the massive and profound changes that will drive
much of what we do and will shape our thinking, our
policies, our strategies, and our plans? One of the
most pervasive and profound of our time is the global-
ization of markets that were once regional — this is little
short of phenomenal — in a relatively short period of
time. Whole industries have gone elsewhere; major
portions of industries have been taken away or been
added. Let me give you a statistic. In 1974, the Big
Three controlled 85 percent of the automobiles sold in
North America. By 1994, 20 years later, that number
was 56 percent, when you take into account the auto-
mobiles sold through the Big Three that were built
145
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
abroad. What a fantastic and astonishing change over
such a short period of time. Now, that's the most dra-
matic, perhaps, but what we have experienced is only
the tip of the iceberg. We will continue the globaliza-
tion of markets at dramatic rates.
To me, the implications are clear. We must
think globally, and we must act globally. It is clearly
inexorable; there's no turning back. Indeed, we should
see it as an opportunity, not a problem, and, of
course, it means we must be globally competitive.
The second major transformational change —
and, again, it is astonishing— is the rise of Asia. We all
know Japan's story, a $120 billion favorable trade bal-
ance with the rest of the world. Of that, $65 billion was
negative with the United States a year ago. Using the
Department of Commerce's own standards of counting
jobs per billion of dollars of exports or imports, that's
1.3 million jobs. And, by the way, our trade deficit with
the Japanese is $600 billion over the past 10 years.
We're now approaching a $40 billion trade deficit with
China. And we use to squawk like crazy when we were
at $40 billion with Japan. So we have a serious problem
there. In China there are 1.2 billion people. By the way,
60 percent of the population of the world is in Asia, 40
percent in China and India alone. We cannot ignore
Asia. If we ignore Asia, it is at our peril.
It was Alexis de Toqueville who said, "America is
great because America is good, and America will
cease being good when it ceases being great."
What again are some of the implications?
China is likely to become the largest economic power
in the world— sheer numbers dictate it. You don't have
to have a very large GNP per person when you've got
1.2 billion growing to 1.5 billion perhaps over the next
few years, which will exceed the economies of both the
United States and Japan.
One startling statistic: If we were to imagine
that someday — it may never happen — but if someday
the per capita automobile population of China were to
equal today's per capita automotive population of
Germany, there would be 500 million vehicles in
China. To put that in perspective, there are 500 million
vehicles in the world operating today.
Imagine the implications militarily. If China is
the strongest economic power on Earth, it is likely to
be one of the strongest, if not the strongest, military
power on Earth someday. Again, imagine what that
tells us about what we ought to be doing by way of
policy.
Now, to me several strategic imperatives stand
out as a result of these changes. Economically and
geopolitically we have to follow paths that create inter-
146
dependence with China, not independence. It would
be unthinkable not to have a situation where China
needs us an ally, wants us as an ally, and where we
want and need China as an ally. So imagine some of
the geopolitical alliances that might result. I'll come
back to that, particularly in connection with space
implications.
Third, moving closer to our subject at hand
today, what about defense, national security, and glob-
al security? We are kidding ourselves if we think there
is any chance of succeeding in preventing high-tech
weaponry proliferation. It is not a question of whether
high-tech weaponry capability will proliferate, but
rather when. I'm not smart enough to tell you exactly
when and who will have it, but we estimate 12 to 17
countries that do not now have the capability will have
ballistic missile capability within the next 10 to 15
years. Half of those, maybe five to seven only, will also
have intercontinental ballistic missile capability and
nuclear warhead capability. If you accept the premise
of the inevitability of the proliferation of high-tech
weaponry, it doesn't take very much logic to say that
implies clearly and distinctly a global overhead system
that will monitor and detect what's going on in the
launch business, and a global system, not just systems
aimed at the former Soviet Union, that has the capabil-
ity of knocking out an unfriendly launch — and over the
territory of the sender, not the receiver, so the nuclear
fallout falls on the sender, not the receiver. And that is
a deterrent to launch in the first place.
I believe there are clear implications for space.
And even if you don't believe in the inevitability of pro-
liferation, which I think is naive, you can't — we can't —
for ourselves and for our grandchildren — afford to bet
otherwise.
The fourth major change is that the U.S.
increasingly will be, because it must be, to some sig-
nificant degree, preoccupied with its problems at
home. Why? In the aggregate, our social problems
and our economic problems represent really and truly
a crisis. And if they are not one, they certainly will do
until a real crisis comes along.
It was Alexis de Toqueville who said, "America
is great because America is good, and America will
cease being good when it ceases being great." Ladies
and gentlemen, I submit to you that we are in grave
danger of losing both our greatness and our good-
ness. I know that's contrary to popular convention, but
hear me out. On the social front, we have some of the
most serious problems in the world. You're aware of
them as well as 1: drugs, crime, teenage pregnancy,
housing, a huge and growing gap between the haves
and the have-nots, education, lack of opportunity —
and the list goes on. If we don't do something about
our social problems, we'll have riots in the street to a
far greater extent than we do today. Our quality of life
will continue to decline, and decline dramatically. So
we have to address, and with a sense of urgency, those
problems. Economically, where do we stand? We have
a $5 trillion budget deficit, roughly. What's not talked
about very often is the $14 trillion unfunded liability
that we have, liabilities we've promised each other
benefits, if you will, that we've promised each other but
have yet to pay over and above the tax receipts that
will come in. Of that $14 trillion, $12 trillion represents
Social Security— or represents entitlements, half of
which is Social Security and half of which is Medicaid
and Medicare. We must address that because that's 50
percent of the budget, and it's moving to 60 percent.
We have in education 20 percent, at best, illiteracy, 40
percent at worst. 88 percent of our 18 year olds can't
consistently put fractions in the order of size. 80 per-
cent can't write an understandable essay on an
assigned subject.
We estimate that by the time our 18-year-olds
graduate from high school, they have watched 22,000
hours of television and they have been in the class-
room 1 1,000 hours. We've gone from the best educa-
tional system in the world to the worst among 17
industrialized countries. We're dead last among those
17 in math and science, and we're almost dead last in
every other subject. You say, what about the top 10
percent of those kids? We're dead last, falling in
behind Hungary, when we compare our top 10 percent
with the top 10 percent of the rest of the countries.
Don't let anybody tell you we don't have serious educa-
tional problems in this country.
I talked about the budget deficits. Our net sav-
ings rates are the lowest in the industrial world, one-
third that of Germany, one-fifth that of Japan. And we
all know the economic growth is a function of produc-
tivity growth. Productivity growth is a function of
investment. Investment is a function of savings. So we
must find ways to reward savings and penalize con-
sumption. We have the perverse rules at this time that
work in the opposite direction. It was Mark Twain who
said, "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run
over if you're not moving fast enough." We know our
problems, but we are not moving fast enough.
Fifth — and I'll try to condense some of these
points — Europe is in much the same shape as we are,
except worse. The Europeans are where we were eight
to 10 years ago in terms of competitiveness, and
they're worse off in terms of social costs. So we can't
expect a whole lot of help from the Europeans in help-
ing to lead the world because they also will be relative-
ly preoccupied with getting their own house in order
over the next several years.
Sixth, several countries in central and eastern
Europe are on the razor's edge as they try to convert
themselves to a full-blown democracy and to a market-
driven economy. We must do more to help. We've got
NEW STRATEGIC VISION FOR SPACE POLICY AN D PROGRAMS
to ensure their success, but that will be yet another
drain on our resources. And, of course, all of you will
know about the implications of their failure.
Seventh, the environment. Dan Goldin talked a
bit about that at lunch. Imagine the dire consequences
that could befall our environment as the rest of the
world industrializes as we did, and perhaps with far less
stringent standards, and as literally hundreds of mil-
lions of vehicles sprout around the globe. This implies
placing a high priority on developing a much better
understanding of likely outcomes and of, course, there
is a critical role for space to play there.
It was Mark Twain who said, "Even if you're on
the right track, you'll get run over if you're not
moving fast enough." We know our problems,
but we are not moving fast enough.
Eighth, and finally, technology. It was Mark
Twain who also said, "It's a good idea to look ahead,
but not farther than the eye can see." Dan touched on
this at lunch as well. Now, I think that's particularly
good advice here, not farther than the eye can see,
because it is probably impossible, not just unlikely, to
foresee with any real specificity the mind-boggling'
pace or magnitude of the changes that will character-
ize technology over the next 10, 20, or 30 years.
Perhaps it is sufficient to say simply we know we are
short on specifics, but that we also can predict with
relative certainty that technology changes will dramati-
cally affect what we do, how we do it and how we think
about what we do, and all with an unknown but enor-
mous implication for space.
In summary and conclusion, that, of course, is
not an exhaustive list of transformational changes, but
it is a list that's highly illustrative and instructive of
what we've got to do as we think through a new strate-
gic vision for space. I've tried to weave in throughout
the talk key implications for each of the identified
changes, not because I know they are absolutely the
right ones, but rather to illustrate the difficult but nec-
essary process that is involved in crafting long-term
strategic visions for the future. However, while difficult,
it certainly is not impossible, and we do deserve better
in the CJnited States. And, indeed, it is an indictment
against all of us, all of us in industry, the public sector,
and the private sector, that we haven't together forged
and developed a consensus on a long-term vision and
key strategic goals. Now, before you become overly
concerned about this failing, allow me to remind you
that these criticisms may also be levied against visions,
policies, strategies, and programs centered on tech-
nology in general, education, economic policies, trade
competitiveness and, yes, even defense. And, in fact,
most of what our government is doing. Sadly our poli-
147
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
cies, programs, and priorities tend to be short-term
and firefighting in nature.
All of what we've talked about tonight virtually
cries out for longer-term, comprehensive, integrated,
affordable, strategic objectives, plans and programs-
including, of course, space. We must decide our priori-
ties in Earth observation, space sciences, planetary
and lunar exploration, military space and, particularly,
defense, launch capabilities, communications— the list
could go on and on.
We must streamline and be certain we are
employing the right organizing principles to achieve
our goals. While we, of course, must find ways to do
more with less, we still have to have adequate funding
on a sustained basis. We can't succeed on the cheap.
Paradigm shifts are required. You all know that as well,
both in the public sector and the private sector.
Space must be an important integrated part of
a well-defined national agenda, a national agenda that
is comprehensive, overarching, integrated, coordinat-
ed, affordable, credible— something we've not had in
my lifetime. If we've had one, I certainly have not been
aware of it.
Now, why space? Space allows us to transcend
humankind, to go beyond ourselves, as Dan said at
lunch. It can help lead us, as the people in the TRW
video said, to reach environmental harmony. Its com-
munications potential could help unite the people of
the world. Truly, its vast and magical mysteries stir the
soul and spark boundless imagination, and we've got
to do our part to keep the dream alive. Together I
know we can make it happen, and together we will
make it happen. For as 1 regularly remind our people
at TRW, failure is not an option.
Thank you very much.
148
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S VIEW OF SPACE
The Clinton Administration's View of Space
Introduction: Steven P. Scott
Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space System Division
Featured The Hon. Lionel S. Johns
Speaker: Associate Director
for Technology
Office of Science and
Technology Policy,
The White House
Mr. Scott: Today is the last day of the 12th National
Space Symposium. We're going to start with the Clinton
administration's view of space by Lionel "Skip" Johns.
Mr. Johns is the associate director for technology in the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
which incorporated the responsibilities of the National
Space Council three years ago. He is also responsible
for coordinating technology research and development
between federal agencies. Ladies and gentlemen, please
welcome The Honorable Skip Johns.
Mr. Johns: Thank you for that introduction. It's a plea-
sure to return this year and be a part of the U.S. Space
Foundation's 12th Annual Symposium. It is a real trib-
ute to the success of the Foundation — and to the
efforts of Dick MacLeod and his staff— that we have
here so many leaders in business and government to
discuss our future in space. And, as Dick has said, it's
the courteous and thoughtful volunteers who make it
happen.
In preparing for this talk, I sifted through some
of my past comments to this group and others around
the nation, and I began to realize that we have done a
lot over the past three years in many areas that rely on
the nation's space science and technology knowledge
and thus assure the future importance of space.
Within the space community, we sometimes
tend to see any changes as unique or isolated occur-
rences. What I want to do today is connect the dots to
show a larger picture. I'd like to talk a little about some
of this administration's policies from a "big picture"
perspective and tie them back into the space pro-
grams and policies we're discussing today.
I will take four of the administration's high-pri-
ority areas: reinventing government, investing in tech-
nology, promoting dual-use technologies, and promot-
ing and protecting the environment. When this admin-
istration took office, the vice president was asked to
take the lead in reinventing the way government works.
Under Dan Goldin's leadership, NASA was at the van-
guard of this movement, not only in terms of institut-
ing organizational and management reforms, but also
in terms of redesigning its largest program, the Space
Station. You have to recall that when we took office,
the Space Station was practically DOA — dead on
arrival. Plagued with cost overruns and lack of focus,
the program had a virtually zero chance of getting
through to Congress. Even with a redesign, it carried
by only one vote!
The easy way out would have been to walk
away from the program and forego manned space
flight for decades. We did not do that. The president
decided that the Space Station was a crucial invest-
ment in our future, and he directed NASA to restruc-
ture the program and seek to expand international par-
ticipation in the project. Today, the Space Station is on
budget and on schedule and continues to be a symbol
of what nations can do in the post-Cold War era
through peaceful cooperation.
I'd like to turn to another theme that this
administration has pursued very strongly — investments
in science and technology. When we first took office,
we published a technology policy to achieve economic
growth. In that report, we made the observation that,
in many ways, technology is the engine of economic
growth. If you want economic growth, it only follows
that you have to keep your engine running. Federal
investments in science and technology fuel a competi-
tive economy.
When we took office, the Space Station was
practically DOA— dead on arrival. Plagued with
cost overruns and lack of focus, the program
had a virtually zero chance of getting through
to Congress. Even with a redesign, it carried
by only one vote!
We have stepped up to the plate, with indus-
try's help, to defend these investments. And we've
done so at a time in the budget process when propos-
ing new initiatives in nondefense discretionary spend-
ing is practically impossible. Our efforts in space trans-
portation are a good example.
I'll bet that if I were to ask 10 of you today,
"What's our biggest problem in space today?" at least
eight of you would say, "the cost of space transporta-
tion." If we are going to ever fully exploit the potential
of space, we have to find a more economical way to
access the space environment. It was for this reason
that we developed a national space transportation
149
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
policy, to chart a clear course toward lower costs, both
on the reusable side and on the ELV side. The NASA
funding going into the RLV program and the DOD
funding going into the EELV program are not merely
isolated funding choices of the agencies involved.
They are part of a conscious strategy to select and
invest in technology for the future. That's what we said
we would do, and we are doing it.
What about on the satellite side of the equa-
tion? If you look at the satellite industry today, you will
see that the United States leads the world in satellite
communications with, I believe, 85 percent of the
world market. Our space industry provides
the vast majority of the on-orbit assets as well as the
ground terminals in use today for communications.
This leadership exists due to the technological advan-
tage from continuing investment that the United States
has in space systems and satellite technology.
Tomorrow's cars, trucks, trains, and ships will
be guided by intelligent systems that will rely
on GPS for timing, positioning, and navigation.
And GPS is used in all sorts of recreational
activities— from hiking and camping to fishing
and sailing.
On Sept. 12, 1995, leaders of the satellite
communications industry met with Vice President Gore
and senior government officials from the administra-
tion, NASA, DOD, and the FCC to discuss their con-
cerns about the future of their industry. This industry
group represented 20 companies from satellite manu-
facturers to service providers.
Several issues were raised by industry. These
issues included spectrum access, trade and security,
access to markets, interoperability, and technology
advancement. One of the clear messages of this meet-
ing was a call for greater cooperation between the
DOD, NASA, and industry in the investment in pre-
competitive technologies needed to continue the U.S.
global leadership in satellites and their applications.
We are leading an effort to identify high priority
R&D investments for satellite technologies. Working
closely with DOD and NASA, we are reviewing each
agency's road map for satellite R&D investment. In
parallel, industry has embarked on an effort to identify
its critical technology needs and to propose an indus-
try-government-academia partnership model. Our
hope is to identify critical technology areas that will
enable the agencies to meet their crucial mission
needs while providing the necessary long-term R&D
that will promote U.S. technological leadership and
industry's continued global competitiveness. We seri-
ously support this effort.
On the space science side, NASA's New
Millennium Program lays the groundwork for an age
of exploration and achievement — by developing and
flight-validating innovative technologies for future mis-
sions. In NASA's vision, future space exploration will be
so extensive and comprehensive that a "virtual human
presence" will extend throughout the solar system and
beyond.
Investing in technology is crucial, however.
Now we must also capitalize on technology we have
already developed. Here I want to talk about a third
theme we have pushed hard — dual-use.
In my view, one of our real success stories here
is GPS. As we speak today, the U. S. leads the world in
the development and use of global positioning systems
and technologies. Originally designed by the Depart-
ment of Defense to meet the navigation and position-
ing needs of U.S. military forces, GPS is now being
integrated into virtually every facet of our military oper-
ations. It is critical to maintaining our national defense
responsibilities.
But like another dual-use defense technology
with which we are all familiar — the Internet — GPS is
also finding its way into our everyday lives. Today's
communications systems use GPS timing signals to
control the flow of information — in fact, the flow of
information on the Internet is controlled by GPS (pre-
cise time feature). Police cars, fire trucks, ambulances,
and other emergency vehicles are using GPS to
improve their response — saving time, and airlines are
gearing up to use GPS to increase safety, enhance
efficiency, and reduce costs. Tomorrow's cars, trucks,
trains, and ships will be guided by intelligent systems
that will rely on GPS for timing, positioning, and navi-
gation. And GPS is used in all sorts of recreational
activities — from hiking and camping to fishing and
sailing. By some estimates, the commercial market for
GPS equipment and services could exceed $8 billion
by the year 2000, and the number of civil and com-
mercial users will outnumber military users by more
than 8-to-l.
On March 28, the president approved a com-
prehensive new U.S. GPS policy that seeks to support
continued growth of commercial applications of this
amazing dual-use technology, while, at the same time,
protecting our vital national security interests.
GPS is not the only example of dual-use tech-
nology. Early on in the administration, the president
directed consolidation of the DOD, DOC/NOAA, and
NASA polar-orbiting weather satellite activities, elimi-
nating duplication and saving taxpayers approximately
$1.3 billion over 10 years with no degradation in ser-
vice. Civil and national security agencies are working
with the science and natural hazards communities to
identify and use, as appropriate, valuable environmen-
tal data gathered by national security assets.
150
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S VIEW OF SPACE
There's one last area I'd like to mention where
administration priorities are driving significant achieve-
ments in space, and that is protecting and preserving
the environment. The president is committed to the
preservation of environmental quality. But we realize
that it takes more than just laws and regulations to
protect the environment; it takes knowledge and
understanding so that we can make effective deci-
sions. This is where science and technology and the
space program have so much to offer.
Satellite measurements from space are a
unique source of knowledge, permitting us to observe,
monitor, and analyze the Earth's atmosphere, oceans,
land surface, and their interactions on a global scale.
They have vastly increased our understanding of such
critical environmental issues as climate change, defor-
estation, and ozone depletion; reduced our vulnerabili-
ty to natural hazards; and given us new resource man-
agement capabilities. Earth observations contribute to
our national security and prosperity.
This is why we have taken significant steps to
strengthen and improve the satellite programs of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the national security agencies, and NASA's
Mission to Planet Earth.
In Mission to Planet Earth, we are integrating
the Landsat series of satellites with the Earth Obser-
vation System (EOS), assuring that these critical land
surface measurements will be continued into the
future. EOS itself has been reshaped to save money
and introduce new technologies, with no delay in
launch dates and no reduction in measurement capa-
bility. We are also pursuing new and creative procure-
ment and program management practices, including
purchases of data from the commercial sector and an
innovative, low-cost small satellite effort called Earth
System Science Pathfinder.
I've outlined in this brief time just a few exam-
ples of how the promises we made three years ago —
whether on reinventing government, investing in tech-
nology, ensuring that we get the most from dual-use
technologies, or preserving and protecting the environ-
ment — are coming to fruition today.
Satellite measurements from space are a unique
source of knowledge, permitting us to observe,
monitor, and analyze the Earth's atmosphere,
oceans, land surface, and their interactions
on a global scale.
I am convinced that, with the able leadership
we have in this room today, both on the government
and industry sides, the same drive that brought us
successfully to this point will propel us into a bright
tomorrow. Thank you very much.
151
13tk
National
Spa
ce
Symposi
osium
Better th
an ever:
April 1 -4, 1 997
The Broadmoor
Colorado Springs
THE FUTURE OF THE SPACE PROGRAM
"TechNation" National Public Radio/Voice of America Radio and TV Program-
The Future of the Space Program
Master Steven R Scott
Moderator: Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space System Division
Session Dr. Moira Gunn
Chair: Producer & Host
TechNation . . . Americans &
Technology
Mr. Scott: Next up we have a real treat — a little point,
counterpoint moderated by Dr. Moira Gunn. Dr. Gunn
is the producer and host of "TechNation," which is a
radio and TV program heard and seen on national and
public broadcasting stations and armed forces radio
and television. She will lead a discussion on the future
of the space program, which will be recorded for an
upcoming broadcast. As a reminder, there will be no
photography during this session. Dr. Gunn is a former
NASA engineer and scientist. As an engineering con-
sultant, she specializes in engineering management,
technology audits, systems testing, and robotics.
Ladies and gentlemen, a warm welcome for Dr. Moira
Gunn. (applause)
Editor's note: The TechNation National Public
Radio/Voice of America Radio and TV Program was
videotaped live at the Symposium and is available
on tape through Dr. Gunn.
Dr. Gunn: Live from the 12th National Space
Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado, I'm Moira
Gunn, and this is "Tech Nation," Americans and
Technology. Please welcome my guests today. First of
all, Congressman Bob Walker, chairman of the Science
Committee for the G.S. House of Representatives;
Congressman Joel Hefley, chairman, Military
Installations and Facilities Committee, G.S. House of
Representatives; the Honorable Lionel Johns, associ-
ate director for technology, White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy; and Dr. Ed Stone,
director of NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Thank
you, gentlemen, for joining us. I have to tell you, last
Speakers: The Hon. Robert Walker
Chairman, Science Committee
G.S. House of Representatives
The Hon. Joel Hefley
National Security Committee
G.S. House of Representatives
The Hon. Lionel S. Johns
Associate Director for Technology
Office of Science and Technology
Policy
The White House
Dr. Edward Stone
Director
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
year many of you were here as well. We did a radio
and television broadcast and on that broadcast we
were fortunate to have Dr. Edward Teller, Dr. Buzz
Aldrin, Dr. Hans Mark and Gen. Jay Kelly. And it was a
wonderful, wonderful panel. The next day, I came
through the front door of this building, and up came
Dr. Teller with his big staff, and he said, "Now, tell me
the truth. I am not embarrassed to ask. More or less,
how was I yesterday?" And I said, "Well, Dr. Teller, you
were magnificent. In fact, you stole the show." And Dr.
Teller looked faintly pleased, and he said, "You know,
but you were such a nice lady. I didn't want to say any-
thing about that ridiculous idea that Buzz has about
tourism in space!" And I said, "Well, Dr. Teller, what's
the problem?" And he explained his problem, and I
said, "Well you know, Dr. Teller, 1 don't think that's
Buzz's idea. I think he had a slightly different intent."
And I explained. And he said,"Oh, hmmmm." And he
stood up a little higher with his staff, and he held his
finger up to me, and he said, "You begin to have a
point." And so while Dr. Teller could not be with us
today, he shall be with us today in spirit, giving us the
opportunity for you, gentlemen, to begin to have a
point. And with that, I think some people do need
some background on just exactly how, independent of
your individual status, we all relate. Now,
Representative Walker, if you would start by telling us
about the Science Committee, and how it affects
space legislation and policy.
Representative Walker: Largely, the Science
Committee has jurisdiction over all civilian research
and development activities within the federal govern-
ment. That includes work at the Department of
153
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Energy, it includes work at NOAA. But one of the
largest jurisdictions is NASA. We have authorization
authority for those programs, meaning that we are the
committee that develops policy that relates to the
space programs and other science-related efforts of
the government.
Dr. Gunn: Skip, the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy. How does that relate here?
Mr. Johns: The White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy is in the Executive Office of the
president. It is one of the mechanisms that the presi-
dent has to have policy coordinated and carried out in
the agencies that are in keeping with the administra-
tion's policies. We are really a consensus-building
organization that works as an honest broker to get
agencies working together on common administration
themes. It's challenging and it's exciting.
The high ground today is space, and the ability
to communicate, to navigate, to predict,
to do all kinds of things in space
that are so important to defense.
Dr. Gunn: You bet. Representative Hefley, I realize 1 did
not give the complete title of your committee. If you
could say it for us and tell us what it does.
Representative Hefley: It's the Department of
Defense, the Military Installation and Facilities
Committee of the National Security Committee, and
I'm here to represent military space efforts today. It's
become so enormously important to the defense
structure of this country. You know, it's not a new con-
cept that in military engagements you try to take the
high ground and hold it. At Gettysburg, all of us who
studied our history, we know the secret of the Union
forces. They had the high ground, the Confederate
forces came on against them on that high ground
time and time again and couldn't dislodge them. The
high ground today is space, and the ability to commu-
nicate, to navigate, to predict, to do all kinds of things
in space that are so important to defense, is why I'm
here today. I was looking at our panel and I'm wonder-
ing which one of us is taking Dr. Teller's place. I'm cer-
tain it's not me.
Dr. Gunn: Make no mistake, both of these congress-
men, Representative Hefley and Representative Walker,
also represent their entire constituencies on all issues,
not just these committee policy types of things. Now
Dr. Stone, tell us how NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
154
fits into this picture.
Dr. Stone: JPL is one of the NASA centers and our
main area of responsibility is deep-space missions —
the planetary missions. We also have a role in Earth
Observing Systems and in astrophysics, and some
work for non-NASA agencies as well.
Dr. Gunn: Skip, I was reading this week's edition of
Space News, and Leonard David filed a story from
Washington which begins, "A soon-to-be released
White House space policy downplays the prospect of
humans venturing beyond low-Earth orbit anytime
soon." How soon is "soon to be released," and just
what time frame does the White House envision for
humans venturing beyond low-Earth orbit?
Mr. Johns: First of all, with regard to the space policy
itself, we have a space policy in effect that was a presi-
dential directive of some years back. And this is to
update that to better reflect what it is that the nation's
space agenda will contain for the future rather than for
the past. This is again a process of consensus building
and we would expect it within the next 30 days. Our
largest problem is getting deputies who are scattered
around the world in the same room at the same time. I
think our next meeting is probably later this month,
during the week of the 25th of April, 1996. It's going
to take probably the better part of the next month to
get the last few issues that we need to get resolved,
settled.
Dr. Gunn: Was that a correct report — that we might
expect a downplay in humans venturing beyond low-
Earth orbit?
Mr. Johns: No, not at all. What it does is it puts the
development of man's space exploration more in the
perspective of the problems that we need to solve
before we go further for long-term missions. A space
station is a critical aspect in resolving problems we
have of long-term manned space presence. There are
problems with bone loss, there are problems with
blood chemistry changes that we need to understand
and solve before man can take long-term ventures into
space. We are on a continuum of pursuing manned
space exploration. We have to get our problems solved
on the way. There's no point in misleading the
American public that we are going to run off any time
soon to Mars. That doesn't mean we're not going to
explore in a manned way, but we'll do it when we get
our problems solved and it's safe to do so.
Dr. Gunn: Recently, Dr. Stone, NASA published a
THE FUTURE OF THE SPACE PROGRAM
strategic plan, and one of the objectives was to estab-
lish a human presence on the moon, in the Martian
system, and elsewhere in the inner solar system. It
seems to me at NASA, you just keep rolling along no
matter what.
Dr. Stone: Well, we have to have a vision. I think it's
very important to have a vision, and I think that the
public really shares the vision of humans in space. But
that's a long term vision, as Skip Johns said. What we
need to do then, is set in place the milestones that will
make it possible, eventually, for humans to venture
again beyond low-Earth orbit.
Dr. Gunn: You know, people often say to me, "Are you
talking about science or are you talking about technol-
ogy?" I think I've said to you in the hallway, I defy you
to separate science and technology. It can't be done.
At the same time, when we focus on science,
Representative Walker, where do you see the leading
needs in science?
Representative Walker: I think that what you have to
do as a society is decide where scientific investments
are going to be made and how you go about doing
that in a way that makes sense. From my perspective,
the way that it makes sense to begin to apportion sci-
ence spending is to have the federal government do a
lot of the basic science funding. The work that goes
on in the universities, the work that goes on in places
like JPL, where we are really pushing the envelope,
where we're developing the new knowledge on which
the technology and the economy of the future will be
based. There are very few corporations willing and
capable of doing that now. So the government has
to make its investments there. But then what we ought
to be doing is setting the kind of policy climate in
which businesses and universities and others will take
the new knowledge and apply it to solutions. Develop
the technologies based upon the knowledge we've
built. And that means, you've got to integrate not only
science policy in what goes on in the rest of the econ-
omy, you've got to look at the totality of your policy.
For example, tax policy plays a role here. You ask any
technology company what's the best thing that they
could have — talking about small entrepreneurial com-
panies — what's the best thing they could have in terms
of getting up and going. They'll tell you a significant
cut in capital gains taxes. When you're talking about
how you have the kinds of things that blend science
and technology, it involves the totality of your policies
in government.
Dr. Gunn: Representative Hefley, I'm not sure that sci-
ence plays a role in the military needs and directions in
space. How does that factor in here?
Representative Hefley: With your earlier statement, I
don't know quite how you separate them, particularly
when you talk about space, but with a lot of things, I
don't know how you separate science and technology.
Is the GPS that Skip Johns talked about earlier, is that
science or is that technology? Well, it's both, of
course, and extremely important. You can go into
Radio Shack to get those GPS receivers for your sail-
boat at under $300, $400 nowadays. I suppose that is
technology, but it was science that developed that, so I
don't know quite how you separate those. I think one
of the problems we have in Congress with our space
program, and we've talked about it a lot at these sym-
posiums and elsewhere, is the perception of the
American people as to whether or not either the sci-
ence or technology of space is very important. I had a
meeting with a group of constituents this week and
one of the statements, and it's not an uncommon
statement that I get, is, "Why are we wasting all that
money in space? If you're going to do science, why
don't you study the oceans more? But why are we
studying space, we're never going to colonize space,
so why are we studying space?" It seems like no mat-
ter how many times we repeat the benefits of studying
space, or the necessity of it, the American people are
not as excited about it right now as we would like for
them to be, and somehow we have to change that.
It seems like no matter how many times we
repeat the benefits of studying space, or the
necessity of it, the American people are not
as excited about it right now as we would like
for them to be, and somehow we have
to change that.
Dr. Gunn: What about your constituents,
Representative Walker?
Representative Walker: I would say that there is a
similar kind of attitude among some of them, although
I was in a high school this week with a lot of high
school students who are using weather satellites to
develop information for the classroom. You have a mix
of students in there all the way from very academically
oriented students to students that would be classified
as among the slow learners. All of them were very, very
excited about the use of what we've created in space
for their learning process, and it leads them to math
and physics and a lot of other things. I think some of
the attitude of the older generation is that they basical-
ly have come to the conclusion that space is never a
place that they're going to go and so why should we
755
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
spend any time there. The attitudes of the younger
generation, who see it as a part of their future, are
very, very different on this. I come down on the side of
the young people. I think we ought to give them their
chance.
Dr. Gunn: It's interesting. I've seen and heard a lot this
week, and we keep talking about the education of the
young people. Everyone was so excited 25 - 30 years
ago about the space program, I feel like we've got a
couple of lost generations in the middle. If we have to
wait for all the young people to reach the age of
majority and for them to vote in their representatives
who support space, we could have a problem.
It's now possible for everyone to participate,
to have the same sense of discovery as the
science team has. I think that's one of the mar-
vels of the communication age, which itself
was created by the space program.
Representative Walker: We had a terrible down-peri-
od, particularly in the mid-70s. In fact, in the mid-70s I
had to be begged to go on the Science Committee.
When I came to Congress in 1976, the Science
Committee was at a low ebb. There was not much
happening in the space program, there was not much
happening in the energy programs, and they literally
had to recruit people to go on the Science Committee.
1 was one of the people who was recruited. I figured
out in a matter of weeks that this is what 1 enjoy doing,
and so I've been delighted to stay there, but I think
that that low ebb really had an impact on us as a
country and on a couple of generations of people, and
we're still building back from some damage that we
did at that time.
Representative Hefley: You know, Bob Walker, the
group 1 was speaking to was an older group, a young
at heart group is what it was called, so 1 think you
make a very good point about the generational differ-
ence.
channel?" Unfortunately, it's the other way around. No
Weather Bureau, no weather channel. On the GPS, for
example, it's very difficult to parse science and tech-
nology. In the GPS there are rubidium and cesium
clocks that control this. The development of these are
very much central to the science enterprise. The fact
that they were needed was a technology need for
worldwide navigational capability, and so there is this
reinforcement process. With NASA you have the same
thing. Astrophysics and astronomy at universities in
this country is 80 percent funded by NASA. The value
there is the feedback from the science community to
NASA as a developing agency, which reinforces and
keeps us very much in the lead around the world.
Dr. Gunn: And while your GPS system on your boat is
clearly a leisuretime activity, the whole GPS system is
kept in place and maintained and controlled by the
(IS. Space Command, the military. To think that we
don't need the military space, you have to think again.
They are all so interconnected efforts here in the
United States.
Mr. Johns: I'd like to get it straight, though. My boat is
therapy.
Dr. Gunn: I see. A lot of those JPL pictures that you're
downloading come right out of your lab.
Dr. Stone: That's right. I think another thing that
makes it possible for everyone to participate is the
World Wide Web. On the JPL home page we have mil-
lions of hits whenever there's a major event — like the
Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts on Jupiter, or last
December when the Galileo probe dropped into
Jupiter. This summer when we're flying by the moons
of Jupiter we're going to be on-line so that anyone
with a terminal can see the latest data coming back
from space. It's now possible for everyone to partici-
pate, to have the same sense of discovery as the sci-
ence team has. I think that's one of the marvels of the
communication age, which itself was created by the
space program.
Mr. Johns: It's interesting to look at what Bob Walker
just said about seeing school kids looking at weather
maps. These kids were downloading these weather
maps from the Internet, which was built by defense
spending originally. It was called the ARPA-net. The
weather maps that they were pulling down come from
the Weather Bureau. There was actually a question on
Capitol Hill a couple of weeks ago where someone
said, "Why don't we shut down NOAA and the Weather
Bureau because we can get all that off the weather
Mr. Johns: And you can find that from the White
House home page, which was created in my office.
Dr. Gunn: It's good to know you don't spend all your
time on your boat.
Representative Walker: I think another interesting
thing about student participation, though, is this most
recent shuttle flight where we had on it a camera
156
THE FUTURE OF THE SPACE PROGRAM
called Kidsat, put on a shuttle just for students' use,
and the students actually determined what images that
camera would take, where it would take them around
the world. There were three high schools around the
country that were running 24-hour shifts to program
this camera, the data would come back to the stu-
dents in their classroom. It was a wonderful learning
experience. A fifth grader I was talking to at JPL
explained to me where the various nations in the world
were. She showed me a little fuzzy blob in one of the
pictures of the desert and said, "That's a little town.
The name of that little town was Garden, because it
was a garden spot in the middle of the desert." She
was just ecstatic about having discovered this place
herself.
Dr. Gunn: Now let me make a point. We all know what
it's like to go to the lecture and listen to someone
telling you something. As you were saying earlier,
Representative Hefley, no matter how many times we
repeat the benefits of space it's like, are you not hear-
ing? Are you not comprehending? We know that when
you do it yourself, you get the picture. We have been
talking, do we send humans out there or just
unmanned probes. What your example is, is telerobot-
ics. A student, who is perhaps 12-years old, under-
stands that she can direct sensors from space and
what she can do with them. Mow this person gets it.
Her parents may not get it, but they vote and pay
taxes. I think that when we're talking about how does
the American public get it, we've got to put some of
that kinesthetic, that feel, into what they're doing so
they can comprehend.
Representative Walker: That's one of the reasons that
Buzz Aldrin's idea of space tourism becomes very, very
important. The moment that people think they have a
real opportunity to go into space at some point in the
future you will change the dynamic of how we discuss
space on Earth, and you'll change the political discus-
sion in a very major way.
Dr. Gunn: Actually, that may have been what I told Dr.
Teller, that he could go. I don't know if you gentlemen
were here yesterday to hear Dan Goldin, the head
administrator for NASA speak, but I know that you're
all acquainted with him and his approach, so how do
you feel about Tang and Velcro?
Representative Walker: Obviously the spinoff benefits
into the economy are an important part of all of this.
As you develop and as these missions go forward and
you find unique things, the fact is they are very, very
important. It's one of the things we've tried to describe
to the public, and the public just says, "Well, it would
have been done anyway." That's not something that
has made a real difference except that at town meet-
ings where the issue comes up of why are you involved
in the space program and why you spend all your time
doing that and why are we spending all that money. I
will go down through and begin ticking off things that
are in their everyday life. I say to them for example,
"Do you like the idea that you are able to sit down at
your TV set in the evening and get the news from
around the world instantaneously?" When I was grow-
ing up as a kid, that was not possible. We had to wait
for the film to be delivered, and sometimes it took
days. And most people will say, "Yeah, that is a benefit,
but that has nothing to do with the space program."
And I say, "Where do you think the pictures are com-
ing from?"
Dr. Gunn: 1 thought he made some very interesting
points, including when you get the idea that there are
products and services coming from space, when a new
program comes up, it seems that you've got to predict
what those products and services are going to be. I
think what he was asking us, in part, to say, is we know
now that the space program of the past has produced
positively for us, without prediction as to what it was
going to do. We ask that you support the space pro-
gram in the future without a psychic view of what is
actually going to happen. Do you feel with your con-
stituents that that would be a tough sale and also from
the White House perspective?
"Do you like the idea that you are able to sit
down at your TV set in the evening and get the
news from around the world instantaneously?"
When I was growing up as a kid,
that was not possible.
Representative Walker: Well, there's an old story and
it fits with this. It's been true of basic research forever
that politicians like to know what it is. There's a story
about an Israeli visiting a scientist in his lab. The Israeli
was making a point, "What is it you're producing
here?" And basic science was being done. And basic
science was not of course going to give him the
answer that he wanted. Finally, the scientist became so
frustrated with the Israeli's question, he said, "I don't
know what it is we're going to get, but whatever it is,
I'm sure you're going to tax it." You've always had that
kind of byplay between scientists and politicians on
these issues.
Representative Hefley: You know that the Persian Gulf
War did a great deal for military space. It showed peo-
ple a great deal about what can be done in space.
757
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
When 1 first went to Congress, when Bob Walker first
went to Congress, the big debate was, oh, let's don't
militarize space. The fact that you could probably
make a case that the V2 rockets had something to do
with space didn't mean anything. Let's don't militarize
space. You don't hear that argument anymore. You
hear the argument about what you ought to do in
space. You don't hear anyone saying, well, we don't
want military communications satellites in space any-
more, or observation satellites, or those kinds of
things. From that standpoint, the Persian Gulf War was
an asset, I think, to our argument from a defense
standpoint about the need for space.
Dr. Gunn: Representative Walker, you introduced HR-
1953, the Space Business Incentive Act. Can you tell
us about that legislation and the issues around it and
what it's trying to accomplish?
Finally, the scientist became so frustrated with
the Israeli's question, he said, "I don't know
what it is we're going to get, but whatever it is,
I'm sure you're going to tax it."
Representative Walker: What we're trying to do is get
people more interested in putting investment dollars
out of the private sector into space activities. I don't
think anybody can analyze the space enterprise of the
future and figure that the federal government is going
to be able to make all the investments necessary. And
so the more that you can attract investment from the
private sector, the better off we are. What this bill is try-
ing to do is to first of all begin to diminish some of the
regulatory barriers that government has put in the way
of investment. We have tried to get government out of
competition with the private sector so that the private
sector can flourish and not have a government-run
program as a competitor. We are trying to make cer-
tain that we have appropriate tax incentives. For exam-
ple, we say that if in fact you are manufacturing some-
thing in space, you will get 10 years of tax-free profits
for that which you manufacture in space. It doesn't
cost us anything because no one's doing manufactur-
ing in space at the present time, but if you ever got
there, just think of all the infrastructure that would be
developed. It would be worth it to the country to pro-
vide those incentives to people. We're doing a number
of things and trying to attract more in the way of the
investment of the total GDP of our country into space
than we get if you simply depend upon government
budget strings.
Mr. Johns: I think one of the things that we can see in
the immediate future is that communication is going
to continue and expand considerably. The prospect of
growing from 50 to 600 or even 700 of what we call
LEO or MEO (low-Earth orbit or medium-Earth orbit)
satellites put up in space by commercial operators is
very likely. If that's the case, we're talking about dou-
bling the number of commercial satellites that are put
up relative to the number that the government puts
up. The only way our companies are going to be able
to have that launch business is to be competitive in a
global market. The satellite folks who want those up
are going to go for the lowest launch cost. We've
already lost 50 percent of the launch market in the
world on those communication satellites. We'd like to
get that back. So we can see that there is a desirability
in a partnership for lower cost access to space. It costs
nominally $10,000 a pound. That would suggest that a
person like me should lose a lot of weight before 1 plan
to go spend a weekend in space. The ways that we get
those costs down are in development programs that
have to be joint efforts with industry. Industry alone
can't afford the cost of those developments. The gov-
ernment represents some part of that market, but we
want the companies not to be stuck with a CIS. gov-
ernment market that is not price-competitive with the
rest of the world. The government gets a better price if
it gets a world competitive price and our launch indus-
try will be competitive with anyone in the world. We're
striving to achieve that, and it's important to make
those investments.
Dr. Gunn: I have to say that I see a lot of JPL things
on NASA Select, which is wonderful, and I'm frequent-
ly engaged by others to discuss the pros and cons of
NASA Select, NASA's own TV channel, and the issues
mainly fall in two categories: that a good deal of the
time is spent with cameras focused on sort of a near
empty control room, and the joke is that there was
more action when we let them smoke. People con-
stantly ask me about that. Another is the fear that
young people may not be watching. I've got some
good news, and I've got some bad news. I have a 13-
year old son, and every time he turns on the television
he cycles through the major networks, MTV, and NASA
Select. He's not alone. This is true of all his friends,
without fail. Now we have the bad news. The other day,
he was looking at an Apollo 13 documentary, it being
the anniversary, and then they rolled right into
Shannon Lucid's shuttle hooking up with MIR, and he
said, "This is so great, she's up there right now." And
then out of the clear blue sky he said to me, "We
bought MIR, right?" I said, "No, no, no." He goes, "No,
Mom, no, we bought the Space Station." I had to
explain it to him. And when 1 explained it to him, he
said, "What a good idea. This is really good." I said
"Yeah, it is really good." Now with that introduction, I
want to ask you, how do you gentlemen see the CIS.
working with other national governments, and of
158
THE FUTURE OF THE SPACE PROGRAM
course within that, however you want to discuss that,
what areas should we be working in, and what share of
the financial burden must the (IS. government expect
to shoulder?
Mr. Johns: Ability to pay has to have something to do
with it. The good news is we're a $6.7 trillion dollar
economy and growing towards $7 trillion very rapidly.
That would suggest that if a nation that has a $1 tril-
lion economy is going to participate, they can't afford
to participate at the level we do. The Space Station is
a 14-nation endeavor which shares those activities.
Mot only is it an effort to pursue science, with the very
companies that Bob Walker wants to see manufacture
in space. What they're going to manufacture is what
has been proven on the shuttle can be done. Once it
has been established that something valuable can be
produced in space, then you will go to the step to pro-
ducing it and they will use those tax breaks to do that,
or a tax holiday for a while. It's a complex process, but
it's important that we have that station there, both for
the human physiology things that I spoke of to enable
us physically to go farther, but also as a science labo-
ratory that is reliable. It will be there for a long period
of time. You will be able to go back and do experi-
ments the way the science community expects to do
it. The industry from around the world is interested in
pursuing those opportunities. That's how space is
going to be further developed. Some of these things
are quite long term — an industry, a company, can't
afford to make these kinds of investments. There have
to be in partnerships with other governments.
Dr. Gunn: Representative Walker, is this an idea that
the Congress finds receptive, or is there some disparity
there?
Representative Walker: I don't think so. I think
Congress has come to the conclusion that if you are
going to do very, very big engineering projects that are
related to our science endeavor, in particular, if you're
going to build the new machines that give you the
basic science, whether they be a Space Station labora-
tory or whether they be a new fusion machine, those
are going to have be done internationally. No one
country can afford to foot the entire bill. Plus the fact
that all of these projects become international in char-
acter anyway. You can't stop international scientists
from participating in them, and so it's better from the
outset to have the partnerships developed so that the
entire world is involved in building the project as well
as participating in the results from it. I believe that in
Congress we are coming more and more to the con-
clusion that as you look at these big projects for the
future, that going the international route makes an
awful lot of sense.
Dr. Gunn: Representative Hefley, what we're talking
about, though, is the science community. We're not
talking about military corroboration in space.
Representative Hefley: No, we're really not. In spite of
the fact that I think that you're going to see more
shared satellites between military and NASA and
NOAA and so forth, we're not going to see much
shared activity with other nations when it comes to
military satellites.
Dr. Gunn: At JPL, Dr. Stone, do you have affiliation
with working outside the U.S.?
The whole world benefits from those scientific
achievements. So it's perfectly natural that
in space those science endeavors would
be undertaken in a cooperative manner.
Dr. Stone: In the space science area, this is a long tra-
dition. The Galileo spacecraft has a German-built main
engine on it, the Cassini spacecraft that will be
launched to Saturn at the end of 1997 carries the
ESA-developed Huygens probe that will drop into the
atmosphere of Titan. The probe carries both European
and U.S. experiments. The main radio system which
will be used to radar-map Titan and transfer data back
is an Italian developed system. There has been a very
strong tradition, and I think it will grow as we continue
to open the space frontier.
Representative Hefley: It's important to recognize
there is a long tradition that all nations and all scien-
tists always share scientific development. The whole
world benefits from those scientific achievements. So
it's perfectly natural that in space those science
endeavors would be undertaken in a cooperative man-
ner. The Internet allows them to talk more easily
across the globe in that process.
Representative Walker: An interesting piece of that
was when we were in the midst of the Cold War. I was
in Russia and was visiting one of the laboratories
where they were building one of the Russian scientific
satellites. They were very proudly showing me at that
point an American experiment that was aboard that
Russian satellite and, as I say, this was when we were
in the depths of the Cold War, so that is a very, very
long-standing tradition.
Dr. Gunn: Again, getting back to the point I keep
bringing up with Representative Hefley, is that every-
759
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
body knows about the Internet. Back when I started at
NASA, it was the ARPA Net, the Advanced Research
Project Agency net, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency network was a defense network, but
then had civilian uses. So once again, we've seeded in
the military and then proceed forward to a civilian use.
Representative Hefley: We really are. I think this rais-
es an issue. We've had a tremendous drawdown in our
defense budgets in recent years. If you're drawing
down the defense budget, where is the emphasis
going to go? Is it going to go on barracks and training
facilities at Fort Carson? Or is it going to go into
space? Of course, some is going to go both places,
but when you're talking about readiness of troops,
that's going to have to compete with space. I think we
need to look at our defense budget and determine
whether or not we're really doing the right thing with
the level of drawdown that we're doing today. Of
course we can draw down, the Cold War are over, but
there are still a lot of very real threats out there, and as
we draw down I think the military space effort, which
has contributed to the civilian community as well as
you indicate, also will suffer.
Dr. Gunn: I think what can affect military budgets is
also the kind of thing that Dan Qoldin was talking
about affecting a NASA budget. Now you would expect
the military to go in and ask for more money. You
would expect everybody to go in and ask for more
money, including NASA. And what he's saying is that
when we have a very large program, that perhaps may
be aging, or perhaps there's a new way to go, can-
celling that program, pulling it back means losing jobs.
And when you lose jobs, there can be a fight in
Congress.
In an age when information is instantaneously
transmitted globally, the nation that develops
the base of new knowledge is going to succeed
all the time.
Representative Walker: It has its ramifications well
beyond that. When you draw down the defense R&D,
it also has an impact on civilian research and develop-
ment because as I go out to the university campuses
right now, they are complaining about the fact that
they are not getting R&D money, but when you figure
out where it is that they have lost most, it's been lost
from military research and development. We have
maintained the National Science Foundation and a
number of those agencies that fund the civilian
research, but the drawdown of military research and
development has had a significant impact, which
1 60
means that researchers are not getting the kinds of
money they need for a variety of activities going on
across the country. So that has been a real problem
for us.
Representative Hefley: It's important to recognize
that the Department of Defense, when it found some
years back that there just wasn't the talent base, start-
ed funding advanced degrees in engineering. DOD
funds 65 percent of the advanced degrees in engineer-
ing in the United States, directly in universities, that's
nearly $1.7 billion. The reason is, we need that talent,
and it's not going to be funded somewhere else. If you
cut that back, NSF couldn't begin to pick that up. NSF
alone is roughly a $3 billion budget. So you can see to
try and pick up an extra 1.7 would be very difficult
indeed.
Representative Walker: The real danger here, I might
say, to some of that military R&D is that it has been
mission oriented. If you wonder why it is that the GPS,
and a lot of these other things that we've cited today,
are having the major spinoff benefits to the civilian
economy, it's because they have been related to a mis-
sion. They had to actually accomplish something that
came out for real in the end, which, oh by the way, can
then be adapted to fairly easily into the civilian econo-
my, such as the Internet or GPS. When you do a lot of
other kinds of technology development in the govern-
ment, it is not necessarily related directly to a mission,
and therefore does not have the same practical impact
into the economy.
Dr. Gunn: I'm going to ask Representative Walker and
Dr. Stone, I'm going to ask you both, understanding
that everybody always has lots of different opinions
here, Representative Walker, from your point of view,
what are the major areas in science that are a priority
for the country?
Representative Walker: You have to have new knowl-
edge in order to sustain the economy. In an age when
information is instantaneously transmitted globally, the
nation that develops the base of new knowledge is
going to succeed all the time. Therefore, I think your
first time investment has to be made in the underlying
basic science that gives you the knowledge from which
to build your economy. Beyond that, I think we have
missions that we want to do as a nation, and we ought
to be investing in those things which are mission ori-
ented, that give us a chance to move ahead. And then
1 think we need to develop an interface that assures
that the knowledge and the mission or work we do
gets transmitted into our economy. We ought to build
the kind of financial strength free from debt, free from
THE FCJTGRE OF THE SPACE PROGRAM
deficits, so that you can in fact have a tax policy that
makes sense and encourages investment over the
broad base of the economy, so that R&D becomes a
real practical help to people's lives and produces jobs.
Dr. Gunn: Dr. Stone, you are a rocket scientist. From
your perspective, what are the priorities for science for
the country?
Dr. Stone: Let me just focus on space science,
because science is a very broad area, and there are
very many important things to be done in science in
general. In space science the focus of the future is in a
general sense what it has been, that is, trying to under-
stand how it all began, understand how things have
evolved to what they are today, and therefore try to
understand how they're going to continue to evolve.
That's the case for the universe, for the solar system,
and for Earth. I think another focus will be the origin
and evolution of life. How did life begin? What were
the conditions that led to the origin of life here on
Earth. Did life begin anywhere else in the solar system?
Is life anywhere else in the galaxy? I think these are the
kinds of fundamental questions. In the process of
developing the tools by which we can try to answer
those questions, we get the technology investment
that we've talking so much about this morning, tech-
nology that has many other implications and uses
which are not even imagined when we're trying to
answer these very fundamental questions.
Dr. Gunn: And if you could, so that people listening
could hear, as a specific example, tell about the Mars
program that's going on right now?
Dr. Stone: We have now a Mars program called the
Mars Surveyor Program. We're going to Mars every 26
months, which is as often as you can go with the
orbits of the planets. We know there was a lot of water
on Mars 3.5 billion years ago, and we'd like to know if
simple life actually evolved during that wet period on
Mars? So we're beginning to explore the surface of
Mars, and on July 4, 1997, we're planning to land a
small micro-rover, about 12 kilogram mass, 8 watts
average power, that will be able to image the surface,
image the rocks, and analyze their composition. It's
just the first step of what is hopefully a systematic
exploration of a neighboring planet where life could
well have originated some billions of years ago.
Dr. Gunn: Skip and Representative Hefley, I didn't
mean to leave the White House and the state of
Colorado out of this. Do you want to add anything
about the priorities of science for the country?
Representative Hefley: I think that something
Representative Walker said, tying in with what was just
said, I am fascinated by the studies of the origin of the
universe and that kind of thing, but that's kind of a
subject for rocket scientists. The thing that really got
the American people excited was what Representative
Walker said, that defense is mission oriented. When
NASA was mission oriented, America got excited.
What was the mission? We're going to put a man on
the moon in this decade and we're going to bring him
home. Wow! This is a mission we can all get excited
about. I'm sure we could all get excited about the Mars
mission, as a matter of fact, too. That excites me when
you start talking about that. Somehow or other the
selling of that is something we need to do better.
How did life begin? What were the conditions
that led to the origin of life here on Earth. Did
life begin anywhere else in the solar system?
Is life anywhere else in the galaxy?
Mr. Johns: In order not to have the rest of science set
aside, we have to remember that in the late 1800s the
average life expectancy of humans was 45. Today, it's
76 for women, and 72 for men — we're going to have
to work on that in the men's department. It is the
investment in life sciences that has made us under-
stand things just a whole lot better. We know that the
resources that our economies depend on are finite.
There is a finite amount of oil in the world. If, as we
heard last night, 50 million cars are driving around in
Japan, they're going to have to burn something beside
fossil fuels, both for environmental reasons and for
energy availability reasons. We need the science to
develop new energy, and these are not investments
companies can make. Yet they are headed towards
technology solutions to problems on life on Earth. We
need to continue to make those kinds of investments.
Dr. Gunn: This has to do with what I call the business
of science, the business of technology. Representative
Hefley, you are right when we said, "Let's go. Let's
send a guy to the moon, and let's get him back."
Wow! I asked on a panel, and I think it must be two
years ago, Skip and I were on the same panel, and Dr.
Carolyn Huntoon, who was head of NASA's Johnson
Space Center was there as well, as well as a number of
other people, and I asked, "OK, first time we sent
somebody to the moon and came back, it took 1
years. How about if we sent somebody there today,
how long would it take?" The shortest estimate I got
was 15 years. I said, "How could that be? That makes
no sense." But Dr. Huntoon said, in a very quiet, even
voice, "You have to understand. We had no idea what
we were doing to Buzz when we sent him out there
161
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
and had him come back. And it's the life sciences that
teaches this. It's great for the movie of the week to
send somebody to the moon and come back, but
they're not going to tune in next week when all we're
doing is monitoring those type of things. We have to
say what it is that involves people and that gets that
benefit, and that's a tough sell. In closing here, I'm
going to ask each of you gentlemen to do something
a little difficult. I'm going to ask each of you, just for
one minute, to put aside the fact that you may be con-
gressmen or a member of the White House staff or a
NASA scientist, and put aside policies and budgets
and elections and even the media, this can be difficult.
Each of you are individuals and you're American citi-
zens, just like every American listening today. From
your personal beliefs, why space?
I think that we are at the unique point in history
when we have a chance to step beyond
ourselves and go where humankind will be
going at some point in the future, and we've
got to take advantage of that opportunity.
Dr. Stone: I think space represents a sense of a future
of opportunity. It really is a sense of being able to learn
something new, to be able to go somewhere no one
has gone before. In a very general sense, space is a
symbol of a future of new opportunities, which I think
is crucial for our civilization.
Representative Hefley: I've always been very intrigued
by the idea of pushing the envelope, pushing the fron-
tiers of science. That somehow or other that's our des-
tiny. We conquer diseases, there's not much smallpox
in the world. There's very little polio, at least in this
country, and there shouldn't be anywhere. That is kind
of the mark of what we are in this country and many
other countries, as a matter of fact. I get excited about
any pushing of that envelope of science to try to dis-
cover what we didn't know before.
Mr. Johns: Suppose I said to you, "You have just
elected me president, and I've decided we've sent
somebody to the bottom of the ocean, so we're not
going to do that anymore. We sent somebody to the
moon so we're not going to do that anymore. We're
just going to sort of make do with what we know
today." What kind of world would that be? That's just
not a place where I think any of us want to live. We've
just got to keep looking for new challenges. That's
what makes us all tick.
Representative Walker: I've often said to myself, "Do I
believe that humankind will at some time explore and
populate space?" And I believe that at some point we
will. Then you say to yourself, "If we have the capability
of beginning that mission today, shouldn't we do it?"
Wouldn't it be a failure of our generation not to move
ahead on that which we know future generations will
do? I think that we are at the unique point in history
when we have a chance to step beyond ourselves and
go where humankind will be going at some point in
the future, and we've got to take advantage of that
opportunity.
Dr. Gunn: Thank you, gentlemen, thank you for join-
ing me, and could we have a warm round of applause?
First of all, Representative Bob Walker, chairman,
Science Committee, U.S. House of Representatives;
Representative Joel Hefley, chairman, Military
Installations and Facilities Committee, G.S. House of
Representatives; Skip Johns, Associate Director for
Technology, White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy; Dr. Edward Stone, director, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. I want to thank Dick MacLeod,
president of the G.S. Space Foundation and the
Foundation itself and its wonderful volunteers for invit-
ing us today, and for their unflagging support of Tech
Nation. Thank you, big round of applause for Dick
MacLeod. I want to ask everyone listening to support
the space program, today and in the future, based
simply and solely on the knowledge that our past
endeavors in space have positively benefitted every one
of us... every part of our society, every nation on Earth,
every member of the human race without fail, without
exception. It is the space program of the past that
enables Tech Nation to broadcast and to reach every
person on this planet today. And to everyone listening
to my voice now, ask yourself, "Why space?" And you
will know, why we must go. For TechNation, I'm Moira
Gunn.
162
EMOTIONAL & SPIRITUAL ASPECTS OF SPACE
The Emotional & Spiritual Aspects of Space: Enhancing Life Here on Earth
Moderator: Steven R Scott
Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space Systems Division
Featured The Honorable Jake Garn
Speaker: Vice Chairman, Huntsman Chemical
Corporation
Former U.S. Senator and Astronaut
Mr. Scott: Now we're ready for our closing address.
We're very honored to have Jake Garn deliver it. Jake
is currently the vice chairman of Huntsman Corp., and
served in the United States Senate from Utah for 18
years. While senator, he flew aboard the Space Shuttle
Discovery as a payload specialist. In 1992, he was the
recipient of the very prestigious Wright Brothers
Memorial Trophy. Ladies and gentlemen, please, a
warm welcome for Sen. and Astronaut Jake Garn.
Sen. Garn: Thank you very much, and I'm certainly
pleased to be with you today to take part in this sym-
posium. I used to come to the symposium when I was
still a member of the Senate. I never had the opportu-
nity to stay very long — it was always come and appear
and catch an airplane back to Washington — so I
enjoyed the banquet very much last evening.
What I'd like to do today is take a little different
tact than we normally talk about, and I certainly don't
in any way mean to diminish the technological spinoffs
that have occurred through space exploration and
development. But I would not take your time to repeat
them because all of you know them as well as I do. I'd
like to talk more about the emotional and the spiritual
aspects of enhancing life here on Earth as a result of
flying in space, and to talk about the amazing speed of
technological change. As a matter of fact, as I sit here
looking at Buzz Aldrin, it reminds me of sitting with my
father when Neil (Armstrong) and Buzz walked on the
moon. My father was a real pioneer in aviation. He got
his wings in April of 1917, and was a World War I avia-
tor. I had to be a pilot or never come home. I had no
choice whatsoever. "Don't ever darken my door again,
kid, unless you become a military aviator." I'll never
forget when my wings were pinned on, my wife
stepped aside and let my father pin them on — and he
was Utah's first Director of Aeronautics. He started to
cry when he saw Neil and Buzz walking on the moon.
I said, "Dad, why are you crying? This is not a sad
event, this is an historic event." He said, "Oh, Jake,
I'm not crying because I'm sad. I'm just overcome with
emotion to think that here I am sitting with my son
and watching a man walk on the surface of the moon,
because when I was 10 years old your grandfather
read me the story about the Wright Brothers' first
flight." So when you think about that, my dad was 10
years old, and he lived long enough, from the Wright
brothers' first flight, to see Buzz walking on the
moon — in just a period of 66 years.
When I look at my own flying background, I'm
sorry that I'm old enough to remember learning to fly
with low frequency radio range stations. VORs did not
exist. And the Morse code, di da's and da dit's, a's and
n's and the bi signal zones, listening to hums in your
ears and hoping it wasn't a thunderstorm. And I can
remember being amazed when I'd shoot an instrument
approach and break out of the overcast and there was
a runway in front of me. It was always sort of a sur-
prise. And now I've got a hand-held GPS which pin-
points every navigational fix in North, Central, and
South America, and I could buy the rest of the world
for $39.95. I'm not going to because my airplane is
not going to cross any ocean so I don't need the rest
of the world.
We live in a remarkable time and a remarkable
age. When I hear that people are not excited about
space, I dispute that. It's 1 1 years this morning since
I had the opportunity to launch on Discovery, and I'm
still doing a couple of schools a week after 1 1 years,
talking to young people about space and the excite-
ment of space. It's amazing how talented those young
people are and how good their questions are. Much
better in many cases than adults'. I wish Congress was
as far-sighted as the grade school children of this
country. They are not, and I can stand up here and
criticize Congress because I spent 18 years there.
We live in a remarkable time and a remarkable
age. When I hear that people are not excited
about space, I dispute that.
I'm an insider so I can say it. Congress is not very far-
sighted. They have a very good way of looking at what
happens between now and the next election — but to
look at something 10 or 15 or 20 years down the road,
when they probably won't be there to take credit for it,
is much more difficult to do. So we look at a space
budget that continues to go down and down and
down, and I can remember when I was a brand new
freshman senator in January of 1975 and was
assigned to the Space Committee in the Senate, which
at that time was a separate full committee. I was chair-
163
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
man of NASA's Appropriations subcommittee for six
years, and 1 can remember over and over again mak-
ing the promise that we could keep NASA whole for
inflation. We couldn't promise them any more, but at
least their purchasing power would not decline. No
administration, no Congress has kept that promise.
I am often asked this question, "Why do we
waste money in space when there are so many prob-
lems here on Earth?" Let's put it in perspective. When
I hear people say, "Why don't we cancel the Space
Station?" I say, "Why don't we go further? Let's cancel
NASA. We simply can't afford a civilian space pro-
gram." Boy, that would save a lot of money, about
9/10ths of one percent of the whole budget. People
are surprised when they hear that number. They're sur-
prised when they hear that food stamps alone last year
were double NASA's entire budget. We're hardly doing
enough when we look to the future. We're eating our
seed corn. We need a lot more vision. We need people
in Congress and in administrations who can look to
the future. I don't know, Bob, maybe term limitations
would solve that problem, because the next closest
thing to eternal life on this Earth is being a federal
bureaucrat or member of Congress. Maybe term limi-
tations would solve that and there would be a little
more courage to look to the future.
If anybody had told me when I was a kid growing
up in Utah that I would have the opportunity to
fly in a reusable spacecraft and orbit the Earth
109 times, I would have smiled and said, "Uh
huh, and what have you been smoking?"
We do have some serious problems on fund-
ing, and it's difficult to manage a NASA budget when
Congress wants every program maintained: "Let's keep
Mission to Planet Earth, let's build a Space Station,
let's continue shuttle operations." Some people forget
there's an aeronautical component of NASA as well as
a space component. Super-critical wings, high bypass
engines, all kinds of technology we use here on Earth
in commercial airplanes that have nothing to do with
space. We're spending 9/10ths of one percent of our
whole budget on that entire effort, both in space and
in aeronautics. A lot more needs to be done.
Again, to indicate that there is interest in
space, I had an exciting evening last October. The
Space Shuttle Discovery stopped in Salt Lake City. It
wasn't just because it was a Space Shuttle, it was MY
Space Shuttle. It took two or three days of delays.
They had problems with the chase airplane, and so on.
They were taking it to California for a year of rehabilita-
tion. But it was MY Space Shuttle, Discovery, and it's
lucky the people were looking at the shuttle when it
taxied up to the ramp, because I started to cry. I got
1 64
tears in my eyes. Do you know what happened? People
say there's no interest in space? We didn't know what
time the shuttle would show up. Finally it showed up
on the third day at 8 o'clock at night and more than
100,000 people in Salt Lake City showed up just to
look at it sitting on the back of a 747. They were going
to close it down at midnight but they couldn't, and
they kept it open all night with spotlights on it so that
they could accommodate the crowds. We had traffic
jams on the freeway, people couldn't get to the airport.
They'd abandon their cars on the freeways and climb
the fences and walk over to see it.
Somehow Congress has got to realize that
these stories, these myths, that there isn't interest
among the American people are wrong. Until both
Republicans and Democrats recognize that you can't
cut the one-third of a budget enough or raise taxes
enough to solve the budget problems until you do
something about the two-thirds that are entitlements
programs and interest on the national debt, we're
never going to solve the budget problem. In fact, there
won't be any one-third left. 1 spent 16 years on the
Senate Appropriations Committee, so I know some-
thing about the budget. You simply can't do it. You
can't cut NASA, you can't cut defense, you can't cut
national parks, you can't cut all the discretionary pro-
grams enough. You can eliminate the entire one-third
and the budget still won't balance. Not until politicians
have enough courage to say "no," no matter how
unpleasant it may be with Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security, food stamps and all of those. We have got to
restrain the growth of those programs. Maybe term
limits would help that, too.
Now I've wandered far off what 1 started to say
and I'm going to get back to it right now. I've said
enough, and I'm sorry people like Bob Walker are leav-
ing because he's one of those who understands what
I'm talking about and has been a leader for many,
many years. I consider him a friend who has fought for
the future. Unfortunately, too many of the good people
in both parties are the ones who are leaving, while the
ones who are staying are those who will put up with
any indignity from the press just for the power and
glory of staying in the Congress of the United States.
It's the good guys that leave, unfortunately. But let me
talk about the other aspect of enhancing life on Earth.
If anybody had told me when I was a kid growing up in
Utah that I would have the opportunity to fly in a
reusable spacecraft and orbit the Earth 109 times, I
would have smiled and said, "Uh huh, and what have
you been smoking?" Because when I was a kid, noth-
ing had flown in space. As a matter of fact, Sputnik
did not fly until three years after I had graduated from
college. So if anybody had even told me when 1 was a
senior at the University of Utah, "You'll fly in a reusable
spacecraft," I would have said, "Sure, uh huh."
It's still the old Walter Mitty dream. 1 wake up
EMOTIONAL & SPIRITUAL ASPECTS OF SPACE
many mornings and think, "Did I really get to do that?
Did I really launch on Discovery 1 1 years ago this
morning?" It still seems like sort of a wild, wild dream.
I had a great crew that 1 still stay very close to. All of us
on that crew had a lot of discussions while we were fly-
ing up there. First of all, I don't think anybody who's
ever flown in space feels that they have the ability or
the vocabulary or the intelligence to describe how
magnificently beautiful this planet is from space. Or to
describe how peaceful it looks. But of course having
lived on the surface you recognize that it isn't very
peaceful and that's why, while recognizing the great
beauty of this Earth and the marvelous feeling of trav-
eling at 25 times the speed of sound and being able to
do things that Mary Lou Rhetten couldn't even think of
doing in zero gravity, that we discussed how angry and
frustrated we were with what was going on on the sur-
face of the Earth. At the time we were flying, the Iran-
Iraq war was going on, and Ayatollah Khomeini and
Saddam Hussein were killing hundreds of thousands
of each other's people. You obviously recognize where
countries are from your geography lessons and you
can identify them, but you certainly don't see national
boundaries and stars for national capitals from space.
So you look down at that situation and you can't fly in
space without recognizing that we're all God's children
on this planet, traveling on Spaceship Earth together
and it doesn't matter where we live, it doesn't matter
what the color of our skin, and it doesn't matter what
language we speak — we are children of God traveling
on Spaceship Earth together.
And the way we treat each other and the way
we behave doesn't make any sense. I wish somebody
could explain to this human being what is going on in
Bosnia. I am not capable of understanding what ethnic
cleansing is. Do these people think that killing each
other and doing it in the name of God is pleasing to
God? I have seven children. I like them to behave well.
I can't imagine being pleased if they are arguing and
fighting and killing each other. It doesn't make any
sense whatsoever. I have often said that if I could take
the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Ayatollahs, those type of
people into space and let them see the perspective
from this Earth that Buzz and I have seen, that I could
turn them into nice people. But if I'm wrong, it would-
n't make any difference, we'd just leave them in orbit
and that would solve the problem as well. There are a
lot of those intangible benefits that don't come in the
category of spinoffs and technology and eight or nine
dollars back in the private sector for every dollar we
spend.
As we were flying too, you'd look down and
you'd look at countries such as Korea, and you'd say,
"What's the difference between North and South
Korea?" They're all Koreans, for the most part. They're
not an ethnic mix like I am. I'm Scotch, Welsh, Dutch,
Norwegian, Danish, English and German. I'm more
NATO than the NATO organization. What's the differ-
ence? Why do you have a North Korea that's still a very
sterile police state, compared to a South Korea that
has shipyards and automobile factories and a dynam-
ic, growing society? It's just like getting hit in the head
with a two-by-four right between the eyes. You say,
"The difference is freedom." The difference is freedom.
Same experience flying over Europe and saying,
"What's the difference between East and West Berlin?"
The answer is freedom. You come to the conclusion
that it's absolutely amazing, absolutely startling, how
talented men and women are. How incredibly talented
human beings are, how creative when they're free. So
it's certainly enhanced my patriotism of this country, to
think how fortunate we are to live in a country that
gives us all of our free choices, to choose with whom
we associate, where we go to school, what profession
we follow. That's why we have produced so much,
because we have been free. So I'm one of those who
think we happen to have an obligation to our fellow
citizens on planet Earth to help them be free. As criti-
cal as I am in many areas, as different as I am from
President Clinton on a lot of issues, I am not critical of
trying to help solve the Bosnian situation. I am critical
when we say God's other children don't deserve to be
free, too. They deserve to be able to use their talent
and be creative and choose what they will do with their
lives. So those kind of feelings come as well, as you
orbit the Earth.
So you look down at that situation and you can't
fly in space without recognizing that we're all
God's children on this planet, traveling on
Spaceship Earth together and it doesn't matter
where we live, it doesn't matter what the color
of our skin, and it doesn't matter what language
we speak— we are children of God traveling
on Spaceship Earth together.
As a matter of fact I was in Germany in
November of 1989 with Sen. Bob Dole and some
other senators, and I thought I was knowledgeable, but
I guess I wasn't really prepared to see on the ground
the difference between East and West Berlin. It was a
few weeks before Christmas, and in West Berlin there
were Mercedes and Beemers running around, women
in fur coats, beautifully decorated storefronts. It didn't
look too much different than an American city at that
time of year until I walked through Checkpoint Charlie
to see block after block of areas that had not been
rebuilt since the end of World War II, to see a very
drab, gray society — a few of those Trabant cars run-
ning around, spewing out pollution, very little street
traffic. Our ambassador to East Germany invited our
delegation to have dinner at the embassy and he invit-
165
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
ed members of the new forum, the dissident group
that started the demonstrations, and he invited mem-
bers of the Politburo. Hoenecker was still running the
country. They were allowing daily visas to people to go
to West Berlin. We saw lines three or four miles long,
people waiting in line just to see what it was like on the
other side of the border. I sat next to a young man and
I asked him to tell me about his life. He said he was 42
years old, he had a doctorate degree in microbiology. I
said, "What about your family situation?" He said,
"When I was 17, my father made a very mild anti-gov-
ernment statement outside that Lutheran Church you
visited this morning. The secret police took him away
and we didn't see him for 13 years. They finally let him
out when he was dying. He lived about six months,
and we lost him. But, let me talk about the good news.
The good news is we saw our 21 -year-old daughter for
the first time in seven years last week."
And I said, "Where has she been?" "Well, we
were lucky enough to smuggle her out under the floor-
boards of a car so she could be free. Now maybe we'll
be lucky. Maybe the wall will come down in four or
five years and we can keep our other children home,
because we're constantly looking for a way out for
them."
Russian cosmonauts are human beings just like
us and I value the friendships that I have with
astronauts and cosmonauts from other countries
with different backgrounds on this Earth.
He said, "You have children, Senator?" 1 said,
"Yes I do. I have seven." He said, "Do you have any
idea how hard it is to decide whether you give your
children freedom or whether you keep them with you?"
And I said, "No. I've never been faced with that kind of
a choice, and I don't know what I would do. 1 don't
know whether 1 could be unselfish enough to give up
one of my children so they could be free." And he
said, "Well it wasn't easy, Senator, it was not easy." And
1 said, "How do you explain that you're so anti-com-
munist, you were born under communism, you've
never lived under any other system." He got a little bit
irritated with me and he said, "Senator don't you
understand? Don't you understand? God gave us free-
dom. The communists have imprisoned my body for
40 years. They have not imprisoned my soul."
Well, I tell you, my wife and I came home, and
got our teenage kids together, sat them down and told
them some of these stories. We said that the next time
you gripe because you haven't got the latest Reeboks
or something from the Gap, or whatever it is, you're
going to East Berlin. I don't think we realize how fortu-
nate and blessed we are in this country. And that's a
perspective I'm sure that Buzz would agree with me
166
on — that you look back at this Earth and you have
these emotional and these spiritual feelings and I don't
know how you quantify that. I do sincerely believe that
that is an enhancement of life on Earth to have that
perspective and recognize we are traveling on
Spaceship Earth together, and I happen to think
there's a lot of solutions to our political problems on
this planet as a result of having that experience.
They're intangible. You can't quantify them like a heart
pacemaker and an implantable insulin pump and satel-
lites and communications and all of that. But maybe
that aspect is even more valuable. I think it probably is.
That's why if I sound a little irritated sometimes and
why I spend so much time still trying to promote
space, because 1 don't know where we can spend
money any better than solving some of these social
problems and political problems on this Earth.
I do sincerely believe that more people ought
to fly in space. People can laugh when we talk about
space tourism. I don't laugh at all. I think more people
should fly in space, and I'm sorry that it's still such a
relatively few, a few hundred, I don't know what the
number is now. I'm telling you, even during the height
of the Cold War, when we would hold our association
of space explorers meetings, we didn't have any prob-
lems with the Russians. Russian cosmonauts are
human beings just like us and I value the friendships
that I have with astronauts and cosmonauts from other
countries with different backgrounds on this Earth.
That's what I wanted to present to you today.
Those feelings that are not often talked about.
Technological spinoffs are valuable, they've improved
and enhanced our lives. But the emotional and spiritu-
al aspect of recognizing how insignificant the Earth is
in the overall scheme of things, that there are 100 bil-
lion suns in our own galaxy alone, and galaxies billions
of light years away — and I will upset some of the scien-
tists here today by telling you there is no doubt in my
mind whatsoever that there is life on other planets.
And as a matter of fact, I happen to think they proba-
bly look just like you and I. They don't have green skin,
pointed ears or anything else. I made that comment to
a Senate prayer breakfast not long after I came back
from my flight, and one of my good Southern Baptist
senator friends said, 'Jake, I don't believe that. God
created the Earth and he created the universe and this
is the only place he put his children. And I think it's
silly that you would think he did it someplace else."
And I said, "Oh, come on, even if you're an atheist
mathematician, the law of large numbers ought to
indicate to you that with billions of galaxies out there,
billions of light years of away, that there might just
happen to be a planet the right distance from its sun
to have the proper temperature and humidity for life to
evolve out of the sea." And he said, "I don't believe
that evolution baloney. I believe that God created the
Earth and the universe." And I said, "Well, you believe
EMOTIONAL & SPIRITUAL ASPECTS OF SPACE
God is intelligent?" And he said, "Yes." And I said,
"Well then, wouldn't that be a lot of overkill out there?
It's not really quite necessary to build all of that."
That's like me saying to all of you, I have built
every house, every apartment building, every shopping
center, every office building on this Earth just for this
group. You'd say that's a little bit ridiculous. You're
absolutely right, and that doesn't even begin to explain
the disparity between planet Earth, this little speck of
dust in this particular solar system, compared to the
vastness of the universe. Yes, there are people out
there. No doubt in my mind about it. That's why they
called me E.T Gam when I was in the Senate and kept
trying to fund SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence project). I'm still trying to help fund SETI
privately because government didn't have enough
money to do that. Just remember, the technological
spinoffs are there. But these other values enhance life
here on Earth. And travel in space for men and women
can provide solutions to a lot of the social and political
and domestic problems we have on this planet. I
appreciate very much the opportunity of being with
you this morning. Thank you very much.
767
Featured Speakers
Gen. Joseph W. Ashy, (ISAF, commander-in-chief, NORAD, and
the unified United States Space Command, and commander of the Air
Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs,
Colorado. Ashy entered the Air Force in 1962 through the Air Force
Reserve Officer Training Corps upon graduation from Texas A & M
University. He earned his pilot wings in 1964 and began his flying career in
the F-100. His military career includes assignments in England, South
Vietnam, Washington D.C., Arizona, Texas, South Korea, Utah, Alabama,
California, Nevada, and Virginia. Some of his military decorations include the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak
leaf cluster, the Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force
Commendation Medal.
The Honorable Robert V. Davis, Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Space, U.S. Department of Defense. Davis is responsible
for all DoD policy, strategy and plans for DoD space and space intelligence
systems, their acquisition and employment, space control, space
cooperation with foreign governments and the integration of space
capabilities into DoD force structure. DoD space activities involve the
annual expenditure of over $13 billion and employ a total of 30,000 military
and civilian DoD personnel. Prior to his appointment, Davis was a senior
professional staff member of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of
Representatives. Davis received his B.S. in Political Science from Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and his Master's of Public Administration degree from American University.
The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator. He was
appointed in 1992 to his post after 30 years in the aerospace industry.
Prior to his appointment he served as vice president and general manager
of the TRW Space and Technology Group in Redondo Beach, Calif. Goldin
served 25 years with TRW managing the development and production of
advanced spacecraft, technologies and space science instruments. Under
^ mumK _^^ his leadership at TRW, the group won the 1990 Goddard Award for Quality
and Productivity and was a finalist in 1991 for NASA s highest quality award, the George M.
Low Trophy. He earned his bachelor's of science in mechanical engineering from the City
College of New York.
168
■f ^^^_ Joseph T. Gorman, chairman and chief executive officer, TRW Inc.
J^^^k He was elected to this position in December 1988 after serving as president
^^j^R and chief operating officer since 1985. TRW is a leading provider of
^3^^V automotive and space and defense systems worldwide. The company is
J^H^^L the world's largest supplier of occupant restraint systems, steering systems,
^^H^^^| engine components, and engineered fasteners, and is a leading producer of
^^A4^H automotive electronics. For space and defense markets, TRW is a leader in
spacecraft and space systems, avionics and surveillance systems, and
software-based systems for defense and commercial markets. Mr. Gorman is a trustee of the
Committee for Economic Development and is a member of the Business Roundtable's Policy
Committee, the Council on Competitiveness, and the President's Export Council. In 1994 he
received Japan's Prime Minister's Trade Award for his contributions to promoting improved
(J.S.-Japanese trade relations. Mr. Gorman holds a Bachelor of Arts from Kent State
University and an LL.B. from Yale Law School.
Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan, chairman, Space
Commission/Secretary, Department of Space, Govt, of India, and
chairman, Indian Space Research Organization. He is the project director
for India's first two experimental Earth observation satellites. He also
oversaw the development of the second generation INSAT spacecrafts
launched in 1992 and 1993 respectfully. He is a Fellow of the Indian
National Science Academy, Indian Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Sciences of India and Indian National Academy of Engineering
and Telecommunication Engineers and the Astronomical Society of India, life member of the
Indian Physics Association, Fellow of the Astronautical Society of India and the National
Telematics Forum.
Alexander Nikolayevich Kuznetsov, the department head for
launch and space support systems at the Russian Space Agency. He grad-
uated from the military academy in 1977. From 1977 to 1995 he
remained in the service and worked at the Institute for Quality Control. Mr.
Kuznetsov conducted experiments and implemented the Meteor- 1 and
Meteor-2 meteorological space satellites, and participated in the prelimi-
nary testing of the Meteor-3 and Electro satellites. From 1985 to 1992 Mr.
Kuznetsov worked in the central power structure of the military-space sec-
tor, and was tasked with the creation of advanced aerospace technologies. The Russian Space
Agency is responsible for the development of rocket engines, boosters, and upper stage
motors, the maintenance of launch infrastructure for the federal space program, and the day-
to-day maintenance and upgrade of launch facilities. This organization also maintains test
stands for the development of space technologies at ground level.
169
Capt. James A. Lovell, (1SN (Ret.), commander of Apollo XIII and
the first man to journey to the moon twice. He also commanded the
Gemini 12 mission with pilot Buzz Aldrin and has logged more than 6,500
hours of flying time, 4,000 of that in jet aircraft. After retiring from the
Navy and the space program he joined the Bay- Houston Towing company
which is involved in harbor and coast wide towing, mining, and marketing
of peat products for the lawn and garden industry, and ranching. He then
served as chief executive officer of Fisk Telephone Systems until it was
acquired by the Central Corporation where he became an executive vice president and a
member of the board of directors before his retirement in 1991. He holds a bachelor's of
science degree from the U.S. Naval Academy and eight honorary doctorates from such
schools as Blackburn University, Rockhurst College, and Milwaukee School of Engineering.
He is a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and the American Astronautical
Society. His honors include the Presidential Medal of Freedom; the NASA Distinguished
Service Medal, twice; and two Navy Distinguished Flying Crosses. He is the Chairman of the
National Eagle Scouts Association and is an Eagle Scout himself. Captain Lovell is Chairman
of the Advisory Board of Mission Home.
The Hon. Robert S. Walker, (R-PA), chairman, Committee on
Science, U.S. House of Representatives. Walker was first elected in 1976.
Prior to his congressional service he was a congressional assistant to U.S.
Representative Edwin Washleman. Walker began his career as a high
school Social Studies teacher in Pennsylvania and while he taught school
he was a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard. He is an author and
co-author of several books and articles. Some of his key legislative
accomplishments include: the Drug-Free Workplace Act; Growth
Management Study, Omnibus Space Commercialization Act; and he is a strong advocate of
research and development into hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. Walker earned his
Bachelor's of Science in Education from Millersville University and his Master's degree in
Political Science from the University of Delaware.
770
H
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
The Hon. Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, Jr. is the President and CEO of The
Aerospace Corporation. From June of 1986 to December 1988, Pete Aldridge was
Secretary of the Air Force. Prior to that, he served as Under Secretary of the Air Force. In
1977 he was named Vice President, National Policy and Strategic Systems Group for
System Planning Corporation. Pete Aldridge served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Strategic Programs from February 1974 until March 1976 when he was select-
ed to be the Director, Planning and Evaluation, and principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the
planning and program evaluation of U.S. military forces and support structure. Prior to his service in
DoD, he was a senior manager with LTV Aerospace Corp. in Dallas for a year until he was named senior
management associate m the Office of Management and Budget, Executive office of the President
Washington, D.C. in 1973. From 1967 to 1972, he was with the staff of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for systems analysis as an operations research analyst and then served as Director of the
Strategic Defensive Division. He also served as an adviser to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in
Helsinki and Vienna. From 1967 and back, Mr. Aldridge held various staff and management positions
with the Douglas Aircraft. Co., Missile and Space Division, in Santa Monica, CA and in Washington D C
He received a bachelor of science degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Texas ASM and a Master of
Science degree, also in aeronautical engineering, from Georgia Institute
of Technology.
Maj. Gen. Robert S. Dickman, USAF, Department of Defense Space Architect,
Washington D.C. Dickman is responsible to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition
and Technology) for space missions and system architecture development. He entered the
Air Force in June 1966 as a distinguished graduate of the Reserve Officer Training
Corps program at Union College, N.Y. He has had a varied career in space operations,
acquisition, and planning, including headquarters assignments at the Pentagon, NORAD
US. Space Command and Air Force Space Command. Dickman earned his bachelor s degree in
physics from Union College, N.Y, and his master's degree in space physics from the Air Force Institute
of Technology. He also has a master's degree in management from Salve Regina College, Newport R I
Some of his military decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit Defense
Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force
Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster.
I ^^ I David T - Edwards, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Earth
^^k Observation Satellite Co. (EOSAT). He is responsible for all EOSAT domestic and
^^m international operations, including marketing, satellite mission management, and follow-on
I'^m satellite development. Before joining EOSAT, he served as director of Financial Planning
jfl^^ and Decision Support Systems at Hughes Aircraft Corporate Headquarters in Los Angeles
™™=^™ Calif. He also held the position of Chief Financial Officer at the Santa Barbara Research
Center, a subsidiary of Hughes Aircraft where he developed the initial business plans in support of
Landsat commercialization. Before joining Hughes Aircraft, he worked six years at Grumman Aerospace
where he performed a number of duties in program business management and corporate planning He
earned both his B.A. and M.S. in finance and accounting from Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y.
Mac Evans, president of the Canadian Space Agency. Mr. Evans has worked
more than 22 years in the Canadian Space Program where his career has included
extensive experience in research, project management, policy development, international
relations, and senior management in a number of federal departments. With the formation
of the Canadian Space Agency in 1989, Mr. Evans became vice president of Operations
with responsibility for all of the Agency's major space programs. These included Canada's
contribution to Space Station, the Radarsat Program which is Canada s first remote sensing satellite, and
the Canadian Astronaut Program. His major accomplishments include: Development of the 1985 and
1994 Space Plans that defined and obtained approval for the Canadian Space Program for the period
from 1985 to 2004; negotiation of the arrangement for Canada's participation in the Space Station
Program; and preparation of the proposal for the creation of the Canadian Space Agency. Mr Evans is a
member of the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute and Fellow of the Canadian Academy of
Engineering. He holds a Bachelor's of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Queen's University
and a Master s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Birmingham in Enqland
which he attended as an Athlone Fellow.
171
I
Dr Murray Felsher, president of Associated Technical Consultants (ATC) and
director of North American Remote Sensing Industries Association. He began his career
in remote sensing as a graduate research and teaching assistant in photogeology at the
University of Massachusetts in Amherst in 1959 while pursuing a master's degree. He
joined the Geology Department faculty at Syracuse University before moving to Washington
D C to become associate director of a National Science Foundation-funded program at the
American Geological Institute. With the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, he
ioined the EPA as a senior staff geologist. He transferred to NASA where he served in various capac.ties
including the originator and first program manager of NASA s Regional Remote Sensing Applications
Program He left in 1980 to form ATC whose clients have included the FBI, Orbital Sciences Corporation,
and the Eastman Kodak Company where he was hired in a permanent consulting capacity as director of
Special Projects. As a consultant to the Department of Defense s Landsat Program Office he was
responsible for establishing a civilian gateway to DOD's Landsat-7 imagery. He is the publisher of
Washington Remote Sensing Letter, the oldest and largest subscription newsletter devoted to remote
sensing/GIS. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and a senior member of the American
Astronautical Society.
Dr. Brenda Forman, has spent over a decade in the private sector first with the
Lockheed Corporation in Calabasas, California, and currently as Director, Federal
Planning & Analysis, for Lockheed Martin corporation in Bethesda, Maryland. Prior to this
she spent twelve years in the federal government, first as a Senior Policy Analyst in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and later as a Senior Technology Policy Advisor in the
Commerce Department. At the University of Southern California's School of Engineering,
she tauqht a qraduate level course that she originated, entitled "The Political Process in Systems
Architecture Design," which some of her students have dubbed "Survival Skills for the 90 s Aerospace
Engineer" She took her Ph.D. in political science at the City University of New York. She is a member of
Phi Beta Kappa and a recipient of the Defense Department's Distinguished Civilian service Award. She
was also an Honorable Mention Honoree at the 27th Annual Wright Brothers Banquet, The Wright
Women " in 1989. She is well known in the space community for her monthly column, now in its ; ninth
year for the United States Space Foundation. She also contributes frequently to Space News, OMNI,
Verti'flite, Program Manager, Acquisition Review Quarterly and other national publications.
E J Jake Garn vice chairman, Huntsman Chemical Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Former Utah Senator Garn served in the United States Senate for 18 years. He served as
Chairman for both the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and the
VA HUD and Independent Agencies subcommittees. He flew aboard shuttle Discovery
fliq'ht 51-D as a payload specialist. Senator Garn currently serves on the boards of Dean
Witter Funds (New York City), John Alden Life Insurance Company (Miami), The Aerospace
Corporation American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the United States Space
Foundation (Colorado Springs). In December of 1992, Senator Garn received the very prestigious
aviation award, The Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy. Senator Garn received his bachelor s of science
degree in Banking and Finance at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Lt Gen. Jay M. Garner, USA, commander of the U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense
Command headquartered in Arlington, Va. He began his military service in the Florida
National Guard. He then enlisted as a Marine and was commissioned a second
lieutenant in the Army. His military career has included assignments in Kentucky, Texas,
Europe northern Iraq, Frankfurt, Germany and Vietnam. Before his current assignment he
served as assistant deputy chief of staff for Force Development, ODCSOPS, Washington
D C He has attended the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Marine Corps Command and General Staff
Colleqe the U S Army Air Defense Artillery Advance and Basic Officer Courses, and numerous other
military schools. He holds a bachelor's degree in history from Florida State University. His awards
include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with
four oak leaf clusters and the Bronze Star.
H
i
172
Michael J. Gianelli is responsible for government operations including business development
and programs at Hughes Space and Communications Company (HSC). Gianelli was named
group vice president in May 1993. He had joined the Office of the President in September the
previous year, leaving a position as interim division manager of the systems engineering and
operation division.During the bulk of his 23-year career at Hughes, Gianelli has worked on
government programs, rising to the position of assistant manager of the systems applications
division in 1988. In 1989, Gianelli moved to the space vehicle electronics division where he was responsible
for control system, software and technology development. In 1991, Ginanelli managed a comprehensive
program aimed at reducing the length of time needed to build spacecraft.Gianelli began his collegiate career
at Notre Dame University where he earned a BS in aerospace engineering in 1969. He went on to the
University of Southern California, receiving his MS in mechanical engineering in 1971 and an engineering
degree in the same discipline just two years later. In 1982, he received an MA in business from Pepperdine
University, and in 1989, completed the UCLA Executive Program. He has received both the Hughes Masters
and Engineering fellowships.
H
Roy Gibson, special advisor to Director General of INMARSAT, and past president and
vice-president of the International Astronautical Federation. Prior to his current position,
Mr. Gibson was the DG of the European Space Agency and the British National Space
Centre. He addition to his present position, he is a vice-president of the International
Astronautics Academy. He is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, a member of the
British Interplanetary Society, and the American Astronautical Society, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Jeffrey D. Grant joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1976 and worked as an
analyst in the Office of Scientific intelligence. He joined the Office of SIGINT Operations in 1978, developing
and installing collection systems. In 1980, he began work in the Office of Development and engineering,
(OD&E) C Program Group, and worked until 1986, developing a series of new collection capabilities. In
1 986, Mr. Grant joined the S Program Group as Chief of their Systems Analysis Staff. In March 1 988, he
became the Program Manager for a major collection system in another group. Mr. Grant Rejoined C Program
Group as Chief of the Systems Analysis Staff in March 1991, and in September 1991 moved within OD&E to
become Chief of the Imaging Technology Division. He worked in the Community Management Staff as
Director, Systems and Architecture Office from July 1993 to June 1994 when he returned to the National
Reconnaissance Office as Director, Office of Plans and Analysis. Mr. Grant holds a Bachelors degree in
Ocean Engineering from the Florida Institute of Technology, and has enhanced his education with numerous
Agency-sponsored training courses. His engineering skills and technical leadership have been recognized by
the presentation of the Agency Certificate of Distinction, the Meritorious Officer Award, the Intelligence
Commendation Medal, the CIA's 1988 Engineer of the Year Award, and the Intelligence Medal of Merit.
B
Dr. Moira Gunn, producer and host of Tech Nation.. .Americans & Technology and
an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco. A former NASA engineer and
scientist, she is an engineering consultant, specializing in engineering management,
technology audits, systems testing and robotics systems. Her robotics systems are in
operation today at such diverse sites as IBM Corporation, Lockheed Missiles & Space,
Morton Thiokol, and the U.S. Navy. She holds a patent, along with USDA nutrition
scientists, on a computerized food intake measurement system. While at NASA's Institute for Advanced
Computation, she managed the software development of large scientific applications including; global
weather and climate models, satellite image processing, earthquake modeling and prediction, and
real-time satellite tracking on supercomputers. She holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and a
Master of Science in computer science from Purdue University.
H
The Hon. Joel Hefley, U.S. House of Representatives, Fifth District, Colorado
since 1987; House National Security Committee, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military
Installations and Facilities, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. He is
also currently in the House Resource Committee serving on the subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests, and Lands as well as the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Hefley also serves on the House Small Business Committee in the subcommittee on
Government Programs. Joel Hefley has held the leadership positions of President of the Class (1987 -
present), Theme team Member, and Assistant Minority Whip (1989-1994). He holds a B.A. from
Oklahoma Baptist University, a M.S. from Oklahoma State University and a Gates Fellow from Harvard
University Summer Program. He has had the honor of receiving the Watchdogs of the Treasury "Golden
Bulldog" award, National Federation of Independent Business "Guardian of Small Business" award,
National Taxpayers' Union "Taxpayer's Hero" award, American Security Council Foundation "National
Security Leadership" award and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "Spirit of Enterprise" award. He has
also received the Common Sense "Sound Dollar" award, the Christian Coalition Friend of the Family
Award and the Theme team's outstanding Speaker award.
173
The Hon. Lionel S. Johns, Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, The White House. "Skip" Johns is responsible for technology
R&D policy coordination between federal agencies. This work is coordinated through the
National Science and Technology Council, including space and aeronautics, industrial R&D,
defense conversion, information and communications and education and training technolo-
gies. He serves as co-chair of three NSTC committees: Information and Communication
R&D, Civilian Industrial Technology R&D, and Transportation R&D. Johns reports to Dr. John Gibbons,
Director of OSTP and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. Prior to this position, Johns
has 16 years of management experience in high technology industries and served as an officer in the
United States Navy as a carrier-based naval aviator.
■
Rear Adm. Katharine L. Laughton, CISN, commander, Naval Space Command,
Dahlgren, Va. Rear Admiral Laughton was commissioned as an Ensign in the United
States Naval Reserve, June 1964. A specialist in information systems technology and
transportation management, Rear Admiral Laughton has had a variety of tours in both
disciplines. In 1979, she assumed command of the Military Sealift Command, Port
Canaveral, where she was the first woman to have operational control of ships. Her
responsibilities as commanding officer included support for the Space Shuttle and the Trident programs.
She had several automated data processing assignments including two tours as a program manager for
ADP systems, on the staff of the Chief of Naval Education and Training and of the commander, Naval
Data Automation Command. She assumed her present position in April 1995. Admiral Laughton's
awards include the Legion of Merit (two awards), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious
Service Medal (four awards), and the Navy Commendation Medal (two awards). In addition, she is a
recipient of the William F. Parsons Award for Scientific & Technical Progress, the AFCEA Medal of Merit
and Technical Excellence Award. She received a baccalaureate in Political Science from the University
of California, Riverside, Ca. She is also a graduate of the Naval War College.
HDr. John S. MacDonald, chairman of the board, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates
Ltd. His professional interests lie in the areas of advanced digital systems engineering,
remote sensing, image processing, and machine vision. He led the design team for the first
LANDSAT ground processing system produced by the company, was involved in the early
development of synthetic aperture radar processing at MacDonald Dettwiler. More recently,
Dr. MacDonald's technical activities have been in the areas of handling techniques,
especially the use of integrated data sets as a means of increasing our ability to extract useful
information from remotely sensed data. As a former assistant professor of Electrical Engineering at
M.I.T., Dr. MacDonald was extensively involved in teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate
levels. In the industrial sector, Dr. MacDonald is a Director of the Geosat Committee in the U.S.,
Analytical Spectral Devices Inc., of Boulder, Colorado, ST Systems of San Mateo, California, Radarsat
International Inc., of Richmond, B.C., and Kinetic Sciences, Inc., Vancouver, B.C. He is a registered
Professional Engineer, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a Founding Fellow
of the Canadian Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute.
Dr. MacDonald earned his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of British Columbia, and his
Master's degree in Electrical Engineering at M.I.T.
Hon. Dr. Hans Mark, professor, department of Aerospace Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, University of Texas, Austin, TX. Prior to serving in his current
position, Mark was Chancellor of the University of Texas System. Mark also served as
deputy administrator of NASA, and was the Secretary of the Air Force. He is the author
and co-author of more than one-hundred-fifty scholarly articles as well as numerous books,
including most recently: The Space Station: A Personal Journey, The Management of
Research Institutions, and In Search of the Fulcrum. He is a member of the National Academy of
Engineering, a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He obtained a B.A. degree
in physics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Mark is the recipient of two honorary degrees, the honorary Doctor of Science
degree from Florida Institute of Technology, and the honorary Doctor of Engineering degree from
Polytechnic Institute of New York.
174
B Robert G. M.nor, president of Rockwell International's Space Systems Division
He directs the design, development, test, evaluation, and production of Space Shuttle
orbiters. He is responsible for all orbiter logistics operations, integration support of the
Space Shuttle vehicles, and Space Shuttle mission flight operations support He directs
extensive aerospace independent research and development projects and is responsible for
• i qiu n f Slgn ' f,cant advan «d technology programs. Mr. Minor was appointed to his present position
in 1988 Before his present assignment, Mr. Minor served as vice president and general manager of
Rockwell s Houston Operations and as president of Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company. He also has
served as orbiter engineering leader in the Mission Evaluation Room at NASA's Johnson Space Center
playing a key role in significant technical achievements of the early Shuttle missions Mr Minor has '
received several honors to include NASA's Distinguished Public Service Award, the NASA Medal for
Exceptional Engineering Achievement, and NASA's Public Service Award. He is a member of the
American Institute of Electrical Engineers and a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. Mr. Minor received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from Southern
Methodist University and continued his studies at UCLA's graduate School of Engineering.
Brig Gen. Willie B Nance, Jr., USA, deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Space and
Strategic Defense Command (SSDC). Nance shares the responsibility for SSDC's role as the
Army s Advocate for Space, Theater Missile Defense, and National Missile Defense He
entered the Army in 1968 and served 13 years as an infantry officer with assignments in
Germany; Fort Benning, Georgia; and Korea. Nance has also served as a project officer for
many of the Army s missile projects conducted at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. Nance
earned his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Southern Mississippi
and Florida Institute of Technology. He is a graduate of the Army Command and General
Staff College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Some of his decorations
include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters
and the Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters.
James P. Noblitt, vice president and general manager for the Boeing Defense
and Space Group, Missile and Space Division. He is responsible for Boeing's work as
prime contractor on NASA's International Space Station program. During the Apollo
program, he worked on the integration team for the giant Saturn V rockets which took
American astronauts to the moon. After a stint designing commercial jetliners, he was put
in charge of preliminary design activities for air-launched cruise missiles. He directed the
design and proposal efforts on advanced versions of the Short Range Attack Missile and the Air
Launched Cruise Missile. In 1989 he was named vice president for Space Systems, then vice president
and assistant general manager of Missiles and Space Division in 1992 and general manager in 1993
He is an aeronautical engineering graduate of Purdue University and an active member of national
organizations including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the National
Space Society.
The Honorable Jaime Oaxaca, vice chairman of Coronado Communications Corporation
Los Angeles, Calif., in charge of public relations, marketing, and research. He has 37 years
of experience in the fields of engineering, engineering management, and program
management. He held various administrative positions including director of international
^^^^ and domestic marketing and long range planning; vice president of missile programs
and vice president and assistant general manager of the Northrop Corporation
Electromechanical Division; and president of Northrop-Wilcox Electric, Inc. He holds a bachelor's of
science in electrical engineering from the University of Texas, El Paso, and is a graduate of the School
of Business at Stanford University. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of
Engineering. He was the first recipient of the Jaime Oaxaca award for excellence in engineering and
dedication to the community from the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, the Business and
Industry Award from the Mexican-American Opportunities Foundation, and the Outstanding Enqineer
Merit Award from the Institute for the Advancement of Engineering
■
H
175
■
Lon Rains Editor, Space News. Rains is responsible for all of the newspaper s news and
editorial coverage. He joined Space News in October, 1989, as the Advanced Technology
and Soviet Space Program reporter. He was responsible for covering the Sov.et Umon s
military and civilian space programs and a number of civil and military space programs
in the United States, including the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program and the work
f the research labs of NASA, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.
He holds a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Maryland.
Vice Adm. William E. Ramsey, USN (Ret.), Vice President, Corporate Business
Development, CTA Incorporated, a leading aerospace company with corporate
headquarters in Rockville, MD. Admiral Ramsey entered active duty in June 1953 with a
commission as an ensign after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy. He completed
flight training in 1965 and has logged more than 4,700 flying hours in tactical aircraft, 912
carrier landings, with 258 at night. Admiral Ramsey was the first commanding officer of
the nuclear carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. He also was the commander, Carrier Group One
embarked on the carrier USS Constellation. He became the first director, Navy Space Systems, Office of
the Chief Naval Operations in 1981 . Some of Admiral Ramsey's awards include, the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with gold star, the Bronze Star w'th combat V device
the Ai? Medal with two gold stars (8 awards), and the Navy Commendat.on Medal with comba V device.
Admiral Ramsey was also awarded the 1986 Military Astronautics Trophy by tta .American A—cal
Society. He earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in naval science from the US Maval Acad emy
Annapolis, Md„ is a graduate of the Royal Air Force Staff College, Bracknell, Berkshire England, the
Naval Test Pilot School, the Nuclear Power School, and the Nuclear Power Training Unit.
Thomas F. Rogers, president of the Space Transportation Association which is interested in
using space more by expanding and increasing efficiency in space transportation He is
also a physicist, a communications engineer, a private investor, and the president ot his
family's private operating foundation, the Sophron Foundation which is emphasizing
low-earth-orbit life sciences and biomedical research. His experience in research and
development is extensive and has included serving as deputy director of Defense Research
and Enqineerinq in the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he was responsible for research and
development supporting the command and control of our nuclear strike forceS ( Rogers J'd research
and development^ during World War I. at the radio *^}*^ f^^^Sl senior
later at the Bell and Howell Company and the Air Force Cambridge Research Center. He has held senior
federal government positions, and professional positions with university industrial and non-profit
organizations. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Inst.tute of ^Jcme/Robe t
Wood Johnson Foundation group that created early emergency medical systems including the 9 1
emergency number in over forty locations across the U.S. Rogers holds a bachelor s of science from
Providence College and a master's degree in physics from Boston University and is a Fellow of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
Steven P Scott, currently directs business development activities for Rockwell's Space
System Division's DoD space programs. This includes responsibility for strategic planning
in the areas of satellites and space defense, and program development on pursuits such as
the Global Positioning System Block 1IF and follow-on programs to the P91-1 ARGOb
Space Test Program satellite. Past assignments have involved business development
— activities with Air Force Space Command, Space & Missile Systems Center, PhiHips
Laboratory, Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on both earth-orbiting
systems and interplanetary probes. Prior to joining Rockwell, he was the Business Development
Manager at Logicon/Ultrasystems for the satellite command and control and simulation and training
program areas and site manager for Contel Federal Systems Division in Los Angeles. While on active
dS as a captain in the Air Force, Scott was responsible for the site actuation and initial operation of the
remote ground stations for the GPS Operation Control Segment. He received his undergraduate degree
n electrical engineering from the University of Texas, and holds a M.S. in Engineering from Northrop
University and a M.B.A degree from Pepperdine University. Scott ,s on the board o directors of the
Natonal Space Club's West Coast Committee, and is a member of the Southern California Association of
Professional Representatives.
176
Dr. Arturo Silvestrini, president and chief executive officer, EOSAT. Dr. Silvestrini has
more than 40 years of professional experience, including more than 35 years in
aerospace-related industries. Most of Silvestrini's career has involved managing large
business operations. He joined EOSAT in 1991 after electing to take early retirement
from Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), where he spent more than 25 years of his
professional career. Before his retirement, he was assigned to coordinate the commercial
CSC initiative of acquisitions and rapid expansion in Europe. Before CSC, Silvestrini served at various
technical, consulting, and managerial levels in companies such as Page Communications and Cubic
Corporation, in both the U.S. and Europe. Silvestrini has authored textbooks and numerous technical
and scientific publications. He is an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics and a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society. He serves on the board of directors of
CTA, Inc. , of Rockville, Md, and is President of Teleos, a joint venture between EOSAT and Telespazio of
Italy. Silvestrini received his doctorate degree in electrical engineering from the University of Rome.
H
Dr. Edward Stone, Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Vice President and David Morrisroe
Professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. Stone is the current chairman
of the Board of Directors of the California Association for Research in Astronomy. Since
1961, Stone has been a principal investigator on nine NASA spacecraft missions and a
co-investigator on five other NASA missions. He is a member of the National Academy of
Sciences and the International Academy of Astronautics. He is a Fellow of the American
Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. Stone also is a member of the American Astronomical Union, the American Philosophical
Society, an honorary member of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a member of the California
Council on Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D from the University of Chicago as well as
honorary degrees from Washington University at St. Louis, Harvard University, and the University
of Chicago.
Akiyoshi Takada, Deputy Director-General, Communications Policy Bureau, Ministry of
Posts and Telecommunications, Japan. In 1968 Mr. Takada entered the Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications. He then became Director of the Postal Savings Department,
Kinki Bureau of Postal Services (Osaka Prefecture), in 1982. Between 1983 and 1985
Mr. Takada was the senior advisor of General Coordination Division, Minister's Secretariat
and in 1985 he became the director of Computer Communications Division in
Telecommunications Business Department. Until 1992 Mr. Takada was the Director of Policy Division
in the Communications Policy Bureau and Director of International Policy Division. Prior to his current
position as Deputy Director-General in the Communication Policy Bureau he was Director-General for
Sinetsu Bureau of Postal Services (Nagano Prefecture). Mr. Takada graduated from Tokyo University
Law School in 1968.
tW. David Thompson, founder and president of Spectrum Astro, Inc. The company builds
small satellites and advanced technology components and subsystems for such diverse
space applications as ballistic missile defense, planetary exploration, technology
demonstration and validation, communications, and research instruments aboard the space
station. Prior to starting Spectrum Astro, Thompson was assigned to HQ USAF SMC in a
-■ wide range of capacities over a 10-year period, including positions in launch, six different
spacecraft development programs, technology and advanced system design and development, Space
Shuttle payload integration and training as DoD Manned Spaceflight Engineer/Payload Specialist. His
last position was as chief of the Advanced Plans Branch for a major office where he was responsible
for the conceptualization and development of a number of small and low-cost but sophisticated quick
reaction space payloads. He is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
I ^m^ 1 Prof. Ernesto Vallerani, chairman, Alenia Spazio, S.P.A. Prior to his current position,
^^^m Vallerani lectured on advanced Gasdynamics at Turin Polytechnic. He was the local
^^^B project manager and later the technical director for the Spacelab program for Aeritalia. He
J^V became the general director of the Space Sector of Aeritalia in 1980 and was appointed to
^^^^■j nis current position in 1991 . He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
^•«™ Astronautics, and a member of the International Astronautical Federation. He is currently a
member of the board of trustees for the International Academy of Astronautics. Vallerani graduated in
Aeronautical Engineering (propulsion) from Milan Polytechnic.
177
■
Maj. Gen. David L. Vesely, USAF commander, 14th Air Force, Vandenberg AFB, Calif.
General Vesely commands the only space force conducting military operations and
supporting global civil and commercial activities. The 14th AF supports warfighting
worldwide with ballistic missile warning, command and control of DoD and NATO satellites,
spacelift generation and range operations, global space surveillance/warning, and ballistic
missile test operations. The general entered the Air Force in March 1966 as a graduate of
the Michigan Technological University Reserve Officer Training Corps program. He is a command pilot
and has flown more than 4,200 flight hours. He also is a Vietnam veteran, he flew more than 200
combat hours in the Republic of Vietnam. The general has experience in special operations, strategic
missiles, tactical fighters, electronic combat, intelligence, training and space operations. He has also
held key staff positions at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force, the
Joint Staff, and at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters. His military decorations
include the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, Defense Meritorious Service Medal,
Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Air Force Commendation, Vietnam Service Medal, and the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm. General Vesely received his Bachelor of Science degree
in Electrical Engineering at Michigan Technological University, and a Master's degree in Business
Administration from Auburn University, Ala. He's completed Squadron Officer School, Air Command
and Staff College, and the Air War College.
Peter G. Wilheim, director, Naval Center for Space Technology. The Center's mission is to
preserve and enhance a strong space technology base and provide expert assistance in the
development and acquisition of space systems which support naval missions. The Center
is the only Defense Department facility that has its own in-house capability to design,
fabricate, and fully qualify spacecraft. Mr. Wilheim is credited with contributions in the
design, development, and operation of 82 scientific and Fleet-support satellites. He has
been awarded five patents. His previous experience includes satellite system design, equipment devel-
opment, environmental testing, launch operations and orbital data handling. Mr. Wilheim s awards
include the Navy's Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the
Presidential Meritorious Executive Award, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Aerospace and Electronic Systems Group Man of the Year Award. Mr. Wilheim is a Fellow of the
Washington Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. He earned a B.S.E.E. from Purdue University, and has completed all course work for an
M.S.E.E. from George Washington University.
En
Michael W. Wynne, Michael W. Wynne is vice president and general manager of Lockheed
Martin Space Systems, a business unit of Lockheed Martin Astronautics located in Denver, CO.
In 1991 he became Corporate vice president and general manager of General Dynamics'
Space Systems Division and in 1992 was named vice president of the Space Systems Division
and in 1992 was named president of the Space Systems Division. In 1982, he joined the Land
Systems Division in the President's office and was subsequently promoted to vice president of
contracts and estimating. Wynne was then named vice president of business development, where he
directed strategic and business planning functions, as well as domestic and international marketing.
Wynne joined General Dynamics' Fort Worth Division in 1975 in the estimating department. He was
promoted to corporate manager of pricing at corporate headquarters. Wynne graduated from the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point. He has a master's degree in electrical engineering (MSEE) from the
Air Force Institute of Technology and a master's in business administration (MBA) from the University
of Colorado.
778
SPACE TECHNOLOGY HALL OF FAME
SPACE SPINOFFS are materials and products originally developed for space program application which
have made significant contributions to benefit all people. Spinoffs are nominated each year for induction into the
Space Technology Hall of Fame.
Sponsored by NASA and the U.S. Space Foundation since 1988, the Space Technology Hall of Fame honors indi-
viduals and companies responsible for these remarkable products. Though the number of inductees is limited, each
nominee is truly a winner in its innovation and practical benefit to humankind.
THE 1996 INDUCTEES:
ANTI-SHOCK TROUSERS
(Health Care Products Category)
A problem that has confronted aviators and astronauts alike is protection from
the g-forces that occur during periods of rapid acceleration. Anti-g suits have
been developed to help to control the shifting of body fluids during changing
gravity conditions. At the beginning of the 20th century a physician observed
that the use of controlled pressure could help reduce internal bleeding.
Subsequently, others made similar observations and began to modify pressure
suits for medical purposes. In 1969, a surgeon who was aware of NASA's
work in this area requested their assistance in treating a patient. A special
suit was developed and was successful in controlling bleeding in the patient.
Subsequently, other patients also received treatment using the novel anti-g
suit system. A similar effort was also occurring at a U.S. Army Post. That
work led to patent and the first commercial Medical Anti-Shock Trouser.
These garments can now be found in most trauma centers and ambulances
and have been credited with helping save the lives of many seriously injured
individuals.
RADIANT BARRIER
(Consumer Products Category)
Space voyagers are subject to temperature extremes that range from 400' F
above zero to 400' F below zero. Protecting equipment and astronauts from
these extremes was an early requirement for NASA. Based on pioneering
research, that continues today, a class of materials called Multi-Layer
Insulation was developed. A key component of this insulation is a radiant bar-
rier made from "metallized" plastics. These materials have been
incorporated into virtually every item, for example, satellites, the lunar
module, space suit, etc, that is exposed to space temperature extremes.
Temperature extremes are not limited to space. They also occur on earth,
although not over such a broad temperature range. Radiant barriers and
multi-layer insulation are being used extensively on cryogenic tanks, food
wrap, plus home and office insulation to name just a few applications.
FIRE RESISTANT AIRCRAFT SEATS
(Industrial Products/Processes Category)
One of the early tragedies of the space program was a fire in an Apollo
module that was undergoing flight preparations. Investigation of all aspects
of the fire indicated that many of the materials used in the module were highly
flammable. One solution to this problem was development and use of a
novel fire resistant encapsulation technology that protected materials from
direct ignition.
It was found that this technology had another important application. It was
for seats and fabrics in aircraft. Application of the fire-blocking material
decreased seat flammability substantially, and also retarded smoke and
toxic emissions sufficiently to allow passengers to safely exit the aircraft in
emergency circumstances. All commercial airlines now utilize this technology
in seats and some other applications in aircraft.
ANTI-SHOCK TROUSERS
(health care products category)
Developed through the
cooperative efforts of:
NASA Ames Research Center
David Clark Co.
George Baldes (deceased)
Alan Chambers (deceased)
Burt Kaplan, M.D.
Don Peeler
Ralph Pelligra, M.D.
Forrest Poole (deceased)
Eugene Sandberg, M.D.
Hubert Vykukal
Bruce Webbon
RADIANT BARRIER
(consumer products category)
Developed through the cooperative
efforts of:
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Radient Technologies, Inc.
Clark E. Beck, Sr.
Robert Brown
Peter E. Glaser, Ph.D.
Eric Hyde
Arthur D. Little
David B. Shea
Preston E. Smith
James M. Stuckey, PAD.
Hugh von Delden
FIRE RESISTANT AIRCRAFT SEATS
(Industrial products/
processes category)
Developed through the cooperative
efforts of:
NASA Ames Research Center
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Mosites Company
John Bailey
Richard W. Bricker
James Burnett
Fred E. Duskin
John Gagliani, Ph.D.
J. Lynn Helms
Richard G. Hill
Joseph D. Keating
Demetrius Kourtides, Ph.D.
Jack Owens
John Parker (deceased)
Matthew I. Radnofsky, Ph.D. (deceased)
Constantine P. Sarkos
David A. Stivers
Daniel E. Supkis, Ph.D.
Edward L. Trabold
179
SPACE TECHNOLOGY HALL OF FAME
SPACE TECHNOLOGY HALL OF FAME 1996 SELECTION COMMITTEE
Fred Abatemarco
Editor-in-Chief
Popular Science
C. Michael Armstrong
Chairman & CEO
Hughes Electronics
Norman Augustine
President & CEO
Lockheed Martin Corp.
Rick Barnard
Executive Editor
Space News
Frank Borman
Chairman, CEO & President
Patlex Corp.
Donald E. Fink
Editor-in-Chief, Aviation Week & Space
Technology Magazine
The Hon. Jake Gam
Vice Chairman
Huntsman Chemical Corporation
Timothy W. Hannemann
Executive Vice President & General Manager
TRW Space & Electronics Group
The Hon. Joel Hefley (CO)
National Security Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
John Hendricks
Chairman & CEO
Discovery Communications
The Hon. Lionel S. Johns
Associate Director for Technology
The White House Office of Science & Technology
Capt. James Lovell. USN (Ret.)
Lovell Communications
Dr. John Mansfield
Associate Administrator
Office of Space Access & Technology, NASA
Bill Schnirring
President
Associated Business Publications
Dr. Arturo Sirvestrini
President & CEO
EOSART
The Hon. Robert Walker (PA)
Chairman, Science Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1 80
SPACE TECHNOLOGY HALL OF FAME
THE OTHER 1996 NOMINEES
Advanced Communication Technology Satellite
has permitted on-demand allocation of satellite
channels, re-use of bandwidth, and the
opportunity for small user earth stations for direct
interconnectivity. The petroleum industry, banks,
and the Mayo Clinic have adapted the technology
to develop new and improved services.
Advanced Wire Resistance Strain Gauge is a
technology critical to the design and development
of advanced gas turbine engines and hypersonic
aerospace vehicles. (Jsing the technology,
companies developed the capability to manufacture
a free-filament, weldable strain gauge for the
commercial market.
Automated Hydrogen Gas Leak Detection System
produced a comprehensive approach that
monitored leaks in hydrogen propulsion systems.
In addition to its aerospace application, the
system can be used to include safety monitoring
of hydrogen facilities and hydrogen build-up in
nuclear waste depositories.
Bioreactor for Cell Culture Systems was
created to study the effects of cell interaction,
metabolism, and other cellular functions in
microgravity, and to protect cultures from high
shear forces present during space shuttle launch
and landing. The commercial Bioreactor design can
reduce the effects of shear and gravity while in an
earth gravity environment, thus providing for the
growth of such things as cancer tumors outside the
human body for study — a vital step in the search
for cancer cures.
Ceramics Analysis & Reliability Evaluation
Software is an enabling software technology that
predicts the failure of ceramics parts which
responds to a national need for developing more
reliable ceramic parts.
Database Management System allows for a system
that could run on a small computer, permitting the
manipulation of data and enabling users to write
miniprograms simply and easily using basic
commands. Many database products and millions
of copies of software based upon this system are
now in use throughout the world.
Low Vision Enhancement System was designed to
capture minute information by satellite camera by
zooming in on the image and enhancing it with
computer software. It is used today to enhance
the vision of over three million visually impaired
Americans who cannot readily discern low-contrast
or who experience blind spots, tunnel vision, or
suffer from macular degeneration.
Ocular Screening System is a digital-imaging
process designed to interpret Landsat satellite
observations of Earth. It is now used to examine
the human eye by photographically recording the
eye's reflective properties. When analyzed, these
properties provide details about the quality of
the eye.
Ground Processing Scheduling System is an
artificial intelligence-based software program
that models the temporal configuration and the
resource constraints while performing schedule
conflict resolution.
Robotic Ultrahigh-Pressure Waterjet Stripping is a
robotic-precision-controlled, high-speed waterjet
cleaning system first developed for the space
shuttles' external tanks and is now being used for
several industrial cleaning applications such as
paint removal from aircraft, railroad cars, tank
farms, and shipyards.
Telemetry Acquisition & Processing System is a
technology that produced a ground station capabili-
ty to receive and process data 1 times faster than
existing systems and fulfilled the requirements of
lower system's cost and high reliability.
Underwater Location Aid (The "Pinger") is a
system that can precisely locate submerged space
objects (space payloads, spacecraft booster, etc.)
and is now used by airlines and others to assist with
location identification in the event of an accident.
Water Purification is a small, lightweight water
purifier that recycles and purifies water using
minimal resources, processed in shorter periods
of time, while being less costly than traditional
methods.
181
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
1996 Symposium Volunteers
Chairpersons:
Rick Hargrave
Media Room
Sheila Lemberger
Transportation
John Neri
Student Tours
Jim Rix
Information Table
Pat St. John
Senior Support
Forum
Bret Stoneking
Security
Brad Thorne
Speaker Support
Team
Frank Wisneski
Exhibit Support
Co-Chairpersons:
Keith Calloway
Transportation
Diane DeGeer
Transportation
Dean Feller
Speaker Support
Team
Marty France
Speaker Ready
Room
Cynthia McKinley
Speaker Ready
Room
Vicki Stoneking
Security
Volunteers:
David Abbey
Hildie Aitken
Trevor Alf
John Anderson
Thomas Angelo
Rick Antinora
Connie Armstrong
Carl Arnold
Jeff Bachmann
Bonnie Bagley
Larry Bagley
Gary Bailey
Kent Banks
LaTasha Barbour
Bryan Bayer
Geoff Bednarsky
James Begley
Linda Belodeau
Tim Bergmann
Andy Bigelow
Cyndi Bissett
Frank Bittinger
Allen Black
Sara Bluestone
Kelly Bobos
Ed Bolton
Jim Boyd
Marna Brasili
Dave Brescia
Toni Brescia
Tom Britten
Kim Braun
Johnnie Brown
Michelle Buono
Budd Butcher
Len Campaigne
Elvira Canzanella
Daniel Cassity
Jeff Caton
Randall Clark
Sally Claunch
Fred Clutz
Lulabelle Coggins
Paul Coile
Ron Cole
Carolina Coll
Phil Cooley
John Corbett
David Criswell
Sharon Crouch
Darrel Curry
Martha Curtis
Sharon Czeikus
Jeff DeBolt
Vic DePetrillo
Kyle Deguire
Andrew Dobrot
Jose Dodd
Larry Dozier
Justin Dunker
Mary Duran
Len Esterly
Tracy Estes
Kenneth Ethridge
Owen Eustice
Marti Fallon
Mike Farrell
Karen Feckovic
Adolfo Fernandez
Sandra Follett
Neal Fontana
Taylor Garduno-Neri
Lane Gilchrist
Brian Glasgow
Jeanne Glogowski
Karen Grabowski
Don Green
Wynn Greene
April Grey
Mark Grisko
Tom Groebner
Ziwa Hampshire
Rich Hand
Bill Hansen
Rob Harrison
Jason Hebert
Bev Heising
Mark Henrich
Bill Hibbard
Jeff Hill
John Hilyard
Tom Holley
Bill Hostyn
Baron Jackson
Ann Jacobs
Al Jamerson
Jammer Jamilkowski
Norma Jenkins
Susan Jennaway
Mollie Jenson
Dave Johnson
Gary Johnson
Louis Joniak
Chris Kaes
Paul Karch
Kristi Katz
Jeff Kenrich
James Kerr
Nobel Keyes
Scott Koopman
Dan Koveleskie
Robert Kozicki
Matthew Kozma
Jon Kraemer
Brandt Laird
Michael Lakos
Carol LeBlanc
Matthew LeVasseur
Tim Lewallen
Harriet Lewis
Walter Lewis
Steve Lindemann
Laura Linfield
Andre Llano
Kay MacDonald
Eleanor MacLeod
Kaipo McCartney
Elle McCulloch
Scott McGillvary
Kevin McGinnis
Earlon McGrew
Carl Machemer
Lee Maddox
Srikant Mantravadi
Storm Martin
Walt Maston
Joe Mertan
Bob Meshako
Betsy Meyer
Todd Meyer
David Miles
Glenda Miller
Marie Miller
Bev Montera
Carl Montera
Manuel Mota
James Munoz
Robert Murphy
Lisa Myers
Francine Nelson
Kathy Nelson
Jerome O'Brien
Kirk O'Connor
Bradd Olsen
George Pacheco
Matt Palmer
Ed Park
Terry Parrott
Vicki Parsons
Jeff Pearson
Wayne Peltier
Greg Petrick
Robert Pfeifer
Maria Pimienta
Raymond Plante
John Prosceno
Loretta Ramirez
Kimberly Reeves
Chip Regan
Michael Reichard
Karin Reifel
Bob Reyes
Randy Rickards
Bob Robinson
Dennis Rosas
Darrell Ross
Steve Ross
Russell Rowland
John Ryan
Maria Ryan
Kurt Schendzielos
Robin Schendzielos
William Schou
Rich Schoonmaker
Rick Schulte
John Scott
Sean Scott
Derek Sebalj
Todd Self
Annena Shaffer
Jerry Simmons
Kevin Smogh
Martin Smith
Joe Snodgrass
Kelly Snyder
Chuck Somma
Alan Sommerfeld
Mary Sparrow
Mark Stout
Ralph Strother
Chris Stuck
Paul Summers
Joe Swinehart
Frieda Tata
Mike Tennermann
Julie Thorne
William Tongue
Marvin Treu
Paulita Trezevant
Scott Trimboli
Wallace Turnbull
Kevin VanderMolen
Bill Vermilyea
Gary Wagner
Eileen Ward
Michael Ward
Christy Wasserburgei
Rob Wasserman
Angela
Weidenbenner
William Welborn
Marcia Wells
Vincent Westmark
Bill Weston
Jerry Williams
Steve Wilson
Forrest Witt
Daniel Wolberg
182
1996 SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES
1996 Symposium Attendees
Mr. Martin Abbott
New Business Systems
Engineering
Allied Signal Aerospace
1300 W Warner Rd.
MS: 1207-5L
Tempe, AZ 85284
Mr. Jim Adamson
Chief Operating Officer
United Space Alliance
1150 Gemini Ave.
Houston, TX 77058
Hon. Edward C. Aldridge Jr.
President & CEO
The Aerospace Corporation
P.O. Box 92957
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957
Dr. Buzz Aldrin Jr.
233 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Mr. James Aliberti
Asst. Tech Mgmt.
NASA Kennedy Space Cente
MS: DE-TPO
Kennedy Space Center, FL
32899-0001
Mr. James N. Allburn
Vice President/General Manager
SRS Technologies Washington
Operations
1401 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
Mr. Jeffrey Allen
GPS/G1S Project Manager
GeoResearch, Inc.
7913 MacArthur Blvd.
P.O. Box 220
Cabin John, MD 20818
Mr. Michael S. Allen
Program Manager
Computing Devices
International
8800 Queen Ave. S.
Minneapolis MN 55431-1996
Ms. Monica Allevan
Senior Editor, Wireless Week
600 S. Cherry St
Denver, CO 80222
Mr. Robert Anderson
Chairman Emeritus
Rockwell
10877 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 10
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4341
Mr. A. L. Andrews
Professor, University
of Southern California
RO. Box 2431
Patas Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
Mr. Michael L. Anna
Product Line Manager
TRW Systems Integration
Group
1555 N. Newport Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Mr. Joseph C. Anselmo
Space Technology Editor
Aviation Week & Space
Technology
1200 G St., Ste. 922
Washington, DC 20005
Mr. Victor Anthony
Reporter, KKTV
3100 N. Nevada
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Mr. Shin Arai
Director of Space
Communications Research
Office
Ministry of Posts and
Telecommunication
3-2 Kasumigaseki Chiyadaku
Tokyo, Japan 100-90
Chris Aries
National Test Facility-USAF
730 Irwin Ave.
Falcon AFB, CO 80912-7300
Mr. Robert Armendiaz
Editor, Hispania News
2862 S. Circle Dr., # 122
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Dr. James O. Arnold
Chief, Space Technology Div.
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffet Field, Mountain View,
CA 94035
Mr. Richard P. Arras
Vice President & Program Director
GPS Prog.
Rockwell International Space
Systems Division
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
RO. Box 7009 - M/C 841-DA03
Downey, CA 90241-7009
Mr. Robert Arsenault
National Test Facility
730 Irwin Ave.
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Gen. Joseph Ashy, USAF
Commander-in-Chief
NORAD/USSPACECOM
Commander AFSPACECOM
250 S. Peterson Blvd.
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-5001
Mr. James Asker
Washington Bureau Chief
Aviation Week & Space
Technology Magazine
1200 G St. N.W, Ste. 922
Washington, DC 20005-3802
Mr. Roy R. Aydelotte
Manager, Advanced Systems
Development
Honeywell Satellite Systems
Operation
19019 N. 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85308
Capt. Christopher B. Ayres,
USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Larry C. Bagley
Program Manager
System Technology Associates, Inc.
1631 S. Murray
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Mr. Mark Bailey
Marketing Manager
Star Sys. Research Corp.
6350 Nautilus Dr., Unit 3
Boulder, CO 80301
CoL William B. Bailey, USAFfRet)
President
Bailey Associates International
Aerospace Consultants
339 Surrey Dr.
Bonita, CA 91902-2352
Dr. Boyd J. Baldauf
2106 Mountview Dr.
Pueblo, CO 81008-1516
Mr. Larry J. Bamford
Supervisor, Project Mgmt
AlliedSignal Technical Services
RO. Box 20
Las Cruces, NM 88004
Mr. Gerald R Banner
Group Leader
M I T Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St.
MS S4-600A
Lexington, MA 02173
Dr. Joseph N. Barfield
Director
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
6220 Culebra Rd.
San Antonio, TX 78238-5166
Mr. William H. Barnett
Director Launch Services
Johnson Controls, Inc.
P.O. Box 1228
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-1228
Mr. Glenn Barney
Manager, Business Development
Com Dev
18400-55 Overlook Rd.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dr. Deborah Barnhart
Vice President, Business
Development
Hamilton Standard Space
Systems International, Inc.
One Hamilton Rd.
M/S 1A-2-A66
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Mr. Dominick Barry
Director Worldwide Services
Spaceport Systems Inc.
3769-C Constellation Rd.
Lompoc, CA 93436
Mr. Kurt E Bassett
Director & Deputy EELV
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Johnny Batache
Manager, Advanced Programs
Harris Corporation - GASD
P.O. Box 94000 MS 22/4730
Melbourne, FL 32902
Ms. Joanna Bean
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph
30 S. Prospect St
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Robert M. Bebee
Director, Lockheed Martin
Management & Data Systems
935 First Ave., Room 13E18
King Of Prussia, PA 19406
Mr. Norman M. Beck Jr.
DoD Customer Segment Manager
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
Kennedy Space Center
100 McDonnell Douglas Way
Titusville, FL 32780
183
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Ms. Janice M. Bellucci
President
Janice M. Bellucci, P.C.
51 Monroe St, *506
Rockville, MD 20850
Mr. John Bendekovic
Business Dev. Manager
Loral Federal Systems
9500 Godwin Dr.
M/S 400/045
Manassas, VA 22110
Dr. John U. Beusch
Asst. Head, Aerospace Div.
Mit Lincoln Laboratory, Rm S4-511
244 Wood St.
Lexington, MA 02173
Capt. William W. Bishop, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Mark E. Bitterman
Vice President, Government
Relations
Orbital Sciences Corporation
21700 Atlantic Blvd.
Sterling, VA 20166
Mr. Bruce Bjornstad
Program Manager
Johnson Controls, Inc.
P.O. Box 1228-LBS 7500
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-1228
Mr. Richard W Blakley
Director, Titan IV Business
Development
Lockheed Martin Technologies Inc.
P.O. Box 179
MS: L5004
Denver, CO 80201
Maj. John Blitch, USA
Colorado School of Mines
Dept of Math & Computer
Science
Golden, CO 80401
Mr. Jay D. Blume
Director Business
Logicon Ultrasystems
14175 Sullyfield Circle
Chantilly, VA 22021
Mr. George E. Boehmer
Manager, Colorado Springs Ops.
TRW Systems Integration Group
1555 N. Newport Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80916-
2727
Ms. Jill Bohney-Lang
MLV Marketing Manager
Alliant Techsystems
M/S GE10
Magna, UT 84044
Mr. Richard A. Borowski
Laboratories Manager
AlliedSignal
White Sands Test Facility
P.O. Box 20
Las Cruces, NM 88004
Mr. Roger A. Bossart
Director of Programs 5
Lockheed Martin Technical
Operations
4450 E Fountain Blvd., Ste.
200
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Ms. Jana Dawn Bott
Director External Affairs
Western Commercial Space
Center
3865-A Constellation Rd
Lompoc, CA 93436
Mr. David Bottoroff
Writer, Sattellite
2115 Ward Court N.W
Washington, DC 20037
Mr. Leo Boudreaux
USSPACECOM/J6N
250 S Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116
Colorado Springs, CO 80914-
3050
Capt Michelle Bowes
1218 Hayloft Lane
San Antonio, TX 78245
Mr. Dave Bowling
Air Safety Investigator
National Transportation Safety
Board
825 Roberts Lane
Batavia, IL 60185
Mr. Dan Brandenstein
Director, Program Development
Loral Space Information
Systems
P.O. Box 58487
Houston, TX 77258
Mr. William M. Braselton Jr.
Vice President of Business
Development
Harris Corporation Government
Aerospace Systems Div.
P.O. Box 94000
Melbourne, FL 32902
Mr. John Bray
Program Manager
Litton Computer Services
985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 105
Colorado Springs, CO 80915
Mr. David Brierley
National Test Facility-USAF
730 Irwin Ave.
Falcon AFB, CO 80912-7300
Dr. Frederick S. Brown
Vice President Group
Development
TRW Space & Electronics
Group El/5061
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr. Larry J. Brown
Manager Program Development
Honeywell Inc.
13350 U.S. 19 North
MS: 749
Clearwater, FL 34624
Mr. Larry Brown
Program Developement Manager
Motorola
8201 E. McDowell Rd. H2242
Scottsdale, AZ 85252
Mr. Robert Brown
Chief, Thermal Branch
NASA/ JSC MS ES3
Houston, TX 77058
Mr. Jay Brownfield
Manager Space Systems
Business Div.
Allied Signal Aerospace
1001 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W,
Ste. 700
Washington, DC 20004-2505
Ms. Virnell A. Bruce
Vice President Communications
Lockheed Martin Corporation
6801 Rockledge Dr.
Mail Point 337
Bethesda, MD 20817
Mr. Kevin Bubach
Reporter, KOAA-TV
530 Communications Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Ms. Amy L. Buhrig
Manager Business Dev.
Boeing Commercial Space
Company
P.O. Box 3999, M/S 8X-58
Seattle, WA 98124
Ms. Angelia Bukley
NASA Marshall Space Flight
Space Science & Applis Office
PS02, MSFC
Huntsville, AL 35812
Dr. Carlo Buongiorno
Professor, University of Rome
Corso Trieste 91
Rome, 00199
Maj. Edwin C. Bush Jr., USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Lt Col. Larry Bush, USAF
Systems Engineer SC1TOR
990 Point of the Pines Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Dr. Peter F Bythrow
Coordinator, Air Force
Activities
John Hopkins University
Applied Physics Lab
John Hopkins Rd., Room 4-282
Laurel, MD 20723-6099
Col. John R Caldwell
Deputy System Program
Director
SMC/CZ NAVTAR GPS
Joint Program Office
2435 Vela Way, Ste. 1613
El Segundo, CA 90245-5500
Ms. Isabell Camillo
Vice President/General Manager
Dawber & Company, Inc.
One Tower Lane, Ste. 1700
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Lt Col. Len O. Campaigne
Vice Chief Requirements &
Programs
HO. NORAD/J5RV
250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-
3280
Mr. John Carlson
Vice President,
Aydin Corporation East
700 Dresher Rd.
Horsham, PA 19044
Mr. Robert Carlson
Market Manager
Fiberite, Inc.
P.O. Box 784
Medford, NY 11763
184
1996 SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES
Mr. William Carter
Manager Business Dev.
Lockheed Martin
LMA Deercreek Facility
1299 Deercreek Canyon Rd.
Mailstop DC 1155
Littleton, CO 80127-5146
Mr. Frank Cartier
Manager, Surveillance Pro
Directorate
TRW Inc. Space & Electronics
Group
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Dr. Ernestine Cary
Director Marketing & Comm.
EOSAT
4300 Forbes Blvd.
Lanham, MD 20706
Capt. James P. Cashin, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Robert E Casner
Director Business Development
United Technologies Chemical
Systems Division
P.O. Box 49028
San Jose, CA 95161-9028
Mr. Marlowe Cassetti
Director Rocky Mountain Region
McDonnell Douglas Space &
Defense Systems
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 108
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Mr. James W Cates
Proposal Manager, Allian
Techsystems
LCLS Business Unit
P.O. Box 98, MS X110
Magna, UT 84044
Mr. T. Michael Celley
Systems Analyst
U.S. Army
IAMG-C-ACIA
Ft. George G. Meade, MD
20755-5998
Dr. Russell B. Chadwick
Chief, Demonstration Division
NOAA Forecast Systems Lab
R/E/FS
3325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80303
Mr. Roger A. Chamberlain
Director Business Dev. Space Sys.
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179, MS5000
Denver, CO 80201
Dr. M G. Chandrasekhar
Director, Indian Space Research Oig.
Dept of Space
New BEL Rd.
Bangalore, India 560094
Ms. Lee Ann Chappell
Communications Manager
Hughes Information Tech.
1768 Business Center Dr.
Reston, VA 22090
Mr. Gerald J. Chodil
Vice President Sensors,
Cryogenics, P & T
Ball Aerospace and
Technologies Corp.
RO. Box 1062
Boulder, CO 80306
Ms. Jackie Chrobuck
Manager Program Development
Honeywell
19019 N. 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85308
Capt. Cary C. Chun, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Todd Citron
Program Manager
Hughes Aircraft Company
2260 East Imperial Hwy.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mr. Jack C. Clark
Manager Space Systems
Lockheed Martin
5933 W Century Blvd., Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Mr. B. W Clowe
Director Sales & Marketing
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 25861
123 Robert S. Kerr Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Mr. Mike L. Coats
Vice President
Loral Space Information
Systems
P.O. Box 58487, Ste. 600
Houston, TX 77258
Mr. Jerry Cobb
Director / LMLV Commercial
Launch Services
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179
M/S DC1155
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Paul Coile
5522 Wilkerson Pass Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80917-
2303
Mr. Russell L Collier
Director, Air Force Programs
Lockheed Martin Washington
Operations
1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Crystal Square 2, Ste. 300
Arlington, VA 22202
Mr. David E. Conrad
Manager, Business Development
AlliedSignal Aerospace
1300 W. Warner Rd.
P.O. Box 22200
Tempe, AZ 85284
Mr. Marc T Constantine
Director / EELV Business
Development
Aerojet Propulsion Division
P.O. Box 13222
Sacramento, CA 95813-6000
Mr. Stephen Cook
Program Analyst, NASA HQ
300 E. St S.W
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Ambassador Henry Cooper
Chairman of the Board
High Frontier Inc.
2800 Shirlington Rd., Ste. 405
Arlington, VA 22206
Mr. Kevin Corbley
Writer, Corbley Communication
P.O. Box 27584
Denver, CO 80227-0584
Mr. Joe Corvino
Vice President Sales &
Marketing
S T Microwave Corp.
340 N. Roosevelt Ave.
Chandler, AZ 85226
Dr. Gary R. Coulter
Professor, Colorado State University
c/o USRA
11694 Bennington Woods Rd.
Reston, VA 22094
CoL Richard O. Covey, USAF (Ret)
Unisys Corporation Space
Systems
Unit 600 Gemini Ave.
Houston, TX 77058
Mr. Steve Crabtree
Editor, The Woodmen Edition
7691 N. Union Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Mr. Bruce Crandall
Principal Scientist
Hughes Info. Technology Systems
16800 E. Centretech Parkway
Building S75/MS 3501
Aurora, CO 80011
Mr. Richard W. Cress
Vice President
Kaman Sciences Corporation
P.O. Box 7463
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-
7463
Mr. Steven W Crowe
Senior Systems Engineer
Loral Communication Systems
1150 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 240
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Mr. Michael Crumlin
Director of Marketing
TSI TelSys Inc.
7100 Columbia Gateway Dr.
Columbia, MD 21046
Mr. Danny R. Culbertson
Asst. Tech Manager
NASA Kennedy Space Center
MS: DE-TPO
Orlando, FL 32899-0001
Mr. Peter R. Dachel
Vice President & Director
Military Space
AlliedSignal Technical Services
Corp.
One Bendix Rd.
Columbia, MD 21045-1897
A. L. Daily
Product Sales
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 25861
123 Robert S. Kerr Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Mr. Donald A. Dalton
Regional Manager
United Technologies
Pratt Whitney Division
7800 S. Elati, Ste. 300
Littleton, CO 80120
Mr. Thomas D. Damon
Professor, Pikes Peak
Community College
5675 S. Academy Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. Donald L. Dandurand
Manager, Lockheed Martin
Corporation
4450 E. Fountain Blvd. # 204
Colorado Springs, CO 80916-
2195
185
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Mr. Alan Darby
Manager, Rockwell International
Corp.
6633 Canoga Ave.
P.O. Box 7922
Canoga Park, CA 91309-7922
Mr. Vernon H. David
Director, Mission
Success/Product Assur.
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
Bennett, CO 80102
Mr. Greg Davis
Executive Producer, Business
News Network
5025 Centennial
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Mr. Mark J. Davis
Satellite Dev. Sys. Engineer,
USAF
155 Discoverer Blvd., Ste. 1062
El Segundo, CA 90245
Hon. Robert Davis
Deputy Under Secretary of
Space for Defense
U.S. Department of Defense
3900 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20030
Mr. Max Decker
Sandia National Labs
P.O. Box 5800, MS 0965
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Maj. Steve DeLory, CF
Space Flight Commander
Canadian Forces School of
Aerospace Studies
CEB WinnipegWestwin, MB
R3J OTO
Mr. Kevin Dennehy
GPS & Navigation News Editor
Phillips Business Information
Global Positioning & Navigation
News
10225 E. Girard Ave., R105
Denver, CO 80231
Dr. Ashok R. Deshmukh
Chairman, American
Astronautical Society
6352 Rolling Mill Place, Ste. 102
Springfield, VA 22152-2354
Maj. Gen. Robert S Dickman, USAF
DoD Space Architect
Department of Defense
2461 Eisenhower Ave., Ste. 164
Alexandria, VA 22331-0900
Mr. Jim Dill
Senior Product Line Manager
ITT Industries
100 Kingsland Rd.
Clifton, NJ 07014-1993
Mr. Eugene R. Dionne
Manager, Technical Operations
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179
Denver, CO 80201-0179
Mr. Harold A. DiRamio
Space Transportation Systems
Manager
Boeing Defense and Space
Group
20403 68th Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98031
Mr. Richard Drennan
Director Space & C41 Systems
Hughes Space &
Communications Co
5886 Sierra Siena
Irvine, CA 92715
Dionn Duffy
Space News
6883 Commercial Dr.
Springfield, VA 22159
Dr. Bonnie J Dunbar
NASA Johnson Space Center
2101 NASA Rd.
1 Mail Code CB
Houston, TX 77058
Mr. David T. Edwards
Executive Vice President,
EOSAT
4300 Forbes Blvd.
Lanham, MD 20706
Dr. Charles Eklund
Vice President Operations
Kaman Sciences
P. O. Box 7463
Colorado Springs, CO 80933
Mr. Chris Elvidge
Professor, Desert Research
Institute
NOAA - NGDC - STP
325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80303
Ms. Erin Emery
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph
30 S. Prospect St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Mr. Robert Emery
EDS
13600 EDS Dr.
Herndon, VA 22071
Mr. Andy M Engelhardt
Director Program Development
Honeywell Satellite Systems
19019 North 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85308-9650
CoL James T. English, USAF (Ret)
Director Business Development
Expansion Rocky Mountain Region
Logistic Specialties Inc.
3175 Soaring Bird Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Ms. Ann Ervin
Reporter, KKTV-11 News
3100 N. Nevada Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Mr. Mac Evans
President, Canadian Space Agency
6767 Route De L'Aeroport
Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9
Mr. George R. Faenza
Vice President & General
Manager
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
Space and Defense Systems
P.O. Box 21233
Kennedy Space Ctr., FL 32815
Maj. Marti Fallon, USAF
Chief, Spacelift Readiness
USSPACECOM/J35
250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116
Peterson AFB CO, 80914-3120
Dr. Murray Felsher
President, Associated Technical
Consultants
P.O. Box 20
Germantown, MD 20875-0020
Mr. Daniel D. Fennessy
Manager, Colorado Springs Office
Boeing Defense and Space Group
1250 Academy Park Lp., # 134
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Mr. Warren Ferster
Staff Writer, Space News
6883 Commercial Dr.
Springfield, VA 22159
Mr. Verlin Fisher
Manager New Business
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
10 Longs Peak Dr.
Broomfield, CO 80021-2510
Mr. Matthew C. FitzGerald
Director Business Development
Applied Solar Energy
Corporation
15251 Don Julian Rd.
La Puente, CA 91745-1002
Mr. John W. Flanigan
Director Field Marketing
ITT-Aerospace
24140 Cruise Circle
Canyon Lake, CA 92587
Mr. Terry N. Fleener
Director Business Development
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
P .O. Box 1062
Boulder, CO 80306
Mr. Gareth D. Flora
Vice President of Business
Development
Lockheed Martin Launch
Systems Advanced Programs
P.O. Box 179 MS: DC3000
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Lawrence Flynn
Senior Buiness Rep.
Loral Federal Systems
685 Citadel Dr. East
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Ms. Theresa Foley
Editor, Space Business News
P.O. Box 9913
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Dr. Brenda Forman
Director, Fed. Planning & Policy
Analysis
Lockheed Martin Corporation
6801 Rockledge MP120
Bethesda, MD 20817
Mr. Robert Forrest
Reporter, KKTV-11 News
3100 N. Nevada Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Maj. Gen. Larry D. Fortner,
USAF (Ret)
Senior Rep for Colorado
Springs
TRW Space & Electronics Group
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 202
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-
3707
Mr. Dick Foster
Reporter, Rocky Mountain News
7 E. Bijou
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Capt. Brad Fournier, CF
Space Instructor
Canadian Forces School of
Aerospace Studies
CFB WinnipegWestwin, MB
R3J OTO
186
1996 SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES
Mr. James V. Franco
CEO, EFX Communications
2300 S. Ninth St
Arlington, VA 22204
Mr. Dean Frazen
Director, Advance Programs
Loral Space & Range Systems
1260 Crossman Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Mr. Greg Freiherr
Contributing Editor
Air and Space Magazine
370 L'Enfant Promenade S.W
Washington, DC 20024
Mr. Allan M. Frew
Deputy General Manager
TRW Defense Systems Division
One Space Park, R5/2090
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr. Jack A. Frohbieter
Exec. Vice Pres. & Gen.
Manager
Orbital Sciences Corporation
Space & Electronics Systems
Group
20301 Century Blvd.
Germantown, MD 20874
Mr. David L. Frostman
Vice President Space Systems
Ball Aerospace Space Systems
Division
P.O. Box 1062
1600 Commerce
Boulder, CO 80306-1062
Mr. Paul N. Fuller
Consultant
Rocketdyne
146 Mira Mar Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. Bill Gail
Manager of Business
Development
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
1600 Commerce St
Boulder, CO 80306
Mr. Dennis Galvin
Project Manager
Rockwell International
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey, CA 90740
Mr. Nicholas J. Ganiaris
Business Development Manager
Aerojet
1100 W. Hollyvale St
Azusa, CA 91702
Col. Joseph C. Garbrous, USMC
Deputy Director, Space
Architect Office
DOD Space Architect
2461 Eisenhower Ave.
Hoffman I, Ste. 164
Alexandria, VA 22331-0900
Hon. Jake Gam
Vice Chairman
Huntsman Chemical Corporation
500 Huntsman Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
Ms. Lori B. Garver
Executive Director
National Space Society
922 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Mr. Robert L Gastineau
Aerospace Engineer
NAIC/PON
4180 Watson Way
Dayton, OH 45433-5648
Dr. William A. Gaubatz
Director Program Manager
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
5301 Bolsa Ave. A3-1370-46S2
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-
2099
Sgt Kathy Gaundra, USAF
Sr. Editor, Guardian Magazine
AFSPC/PA
Peterson AFB, CO 80914
Mr. Theofanis G. Gavrilis
V.R Special Programs
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179 MS: 8040
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. George F Gessler
Director, Inertial Systems
Honeywell, Inc. Space Systems
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North
Clearwater, FL 34624-7290
Mr. Michael Gianelli
Vice President
Hughes Space & Communications
Building S10/M-S S303
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Mr. Roy Gibson
Former Director
European Space Agency
Residence Les Hesperides
51 Allee Jean De Beins
Montpellier, F 34000
Mr. Robert M. Glaysher
Vice President and General
Manager
Rockwell International Satellite
& Space Defense Systems
12214 Lakewood Blvd., MS:
BA09
Downey, CA 90241
Mr. Bruce Goldberg
Editor, Colorado Business
Magazine Wiesner Inc.
7009 S Potomac
Englewood, CO 80112
Mr. Stanley Goldberg
Spec. Assist. Office of Space
Flight
NASA Headquarters
300 E. St., S.W
Washington, DC 20546
Mr. Daniel S. Goldin
Administrator, NASA
Headquarters
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.
Washington, DC 20546
Mr. Howard Goldstein
Senior Scientist, NASA
Ames Space Technology
Division
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Mr. Phil Gomez
Reporter , KRDO News 13
399 S. 8th St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Daniel R. Gonzales
Senior C41 Space Systems
Analyst Rand
1700 Main St.
P. O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Mr. Roman Gonzales, III
Manager, Business
Development
Hughes Santa Barbara Remote
Sensing
75 Coromar Dr.
Goleta, CA 93117
Mr. Steven D. Goo
Space Transportation Manager
Boeing Defense & Space
Group
RO. Box 3999 M/S 84-16
Everett, WA 98208
Mr. William A. Good
Editor, Vietnam Veterans
of America
P.O. Box 4321
Littleton, CO 80126-4321
Mr. Jim Goodhart
Marketing Manager
AlliedSignal Aerospace
2525 W. 190th St.
Torrance, CA 90509
Mr. Jim Gorman
Satellite/Ground Systems
Engineer
13555 Pinery Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80908-
2839
Mr. Joseph T Gorman
Chairman & CEO
TRW Inc.
1900 Richmond Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44124
Mr. Lance Grace
Executive Dir., State of New
Mexico
Office of Space
Commercialization
1990 East Lohman
Las Cruces, NM 88001
Mr. Allen K. Grant
Program Development Manager
Motorola
8201 E. McDowell H2242
Scottsdale, AZ 85252
Mr. Jeffrey D. Grant
Director, Office of Plans and
Analysis National
Reconnaissance Office
1040 Defense - Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1040
Mr. Paul Graziani
President
Analytical Graphics Inc.
P.O. Box 61206
King Of Prussia, PA 19406
Dr. Lynn G. Gref
Manager Flight Systems Office
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Ms: 126-244
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109
Mr. James L Grogan, III
Project Director
Computer Sciences Corp.
24229 Ward St.
Torrance, CA 90505
Mr. James Grohowski
President Astrotech Space
Operations
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
12510 Prosperity Dr., Ste. 100
Silver Spring, MD 20904-1663
187
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Mr. Stuart Grossberg
Market Manager, Hydrazin
Propellents
Olin Corporation
350 Knotter Dr.
Cheshire, CT 06410
Mr. Leonard H. Grove
Director Space & Marine
Systems Products
Allied Signal Aerospace
1300 W. Warner Rd.
Tempe, AZ 85285
Mr. Judson B. Grubbs, II
Director Advanced Programs
Lockheed Martin Missiles &
Space
1111 Lockheed Way
0/M0-01 B/158
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Dr. Moira A. Gunn
Producer & Host, Tech Nation
. . . Americans & Technology
MogoTech Media
P.O. Box 590607
San Francisco, CA 94159
Mr. Jon E Guthrie
Vice President
Business Development
Loral Space Information
Systems
P.O. Box 58487
Houston, TX 77258
Mr. Seth Gutman
System Technlogy Associates, Inc.
3100 Arapahoe, Ste. 300
Boulder, CO 80303-1050
Mr. Steven A. Haas
Business Development
Manager
Lockheed Martin Astro Space
P. O. Box 8555
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Ms. Karen Haenke
Trident Data Systems
P.O. Box 5662
Lompoc, CA 93437
Mr. Ken Hamada
Group Leader, Kanematsu
Aerospace Corp.
Space & Defense Electronics
10F NOA Building 2-3-5
Azabudai Minatoku
Tokyo, Japan 106
Mr. H. Neal Hammond
Program Director, Government
Programs
Rockwell Space Operations
Company
600 Gemini Ave.
MC: ROIA
Houston, TX 77058
Capt. David Hanak, USAF
CFSAS, CFB
Winnipeg Westwin, MB R3J
0T0
Ms. Claudia Hansen
Manager, New Business
Development
Chem-tronics, Inc.
1150 W. Bradley
RO. Box 160A
El Cajon, CA 92020
Maj Gen. Donald G Hard, USAF
(Ret)
President, Logicon UltraSystems
14175 Sullyfield Circle, Ste. 700
Chantilly, VA 22021
Mr. Burt Harmes
5302 Kissing Camels Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80904
Mr. Greg Harms
Business Development
Hughes Information Technology
Systems
16800 E. CentreTech Parkway
Aurora, CO 80011
Ms. Rosemary Harris
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph
30 S. Prospect St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Dr. Shelley A Harrison
Chairman of the Board
Spacehab Inc.
1595 Springhill Rd., Ste. 360
Vienna, VA 22182
Capt. Mark E. Harter, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Michael S. Hayner
Manager Space Programs
Bechtel National Inc.
50 Beale St
P.O. Box 193965
San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
Lt Col. Peter l_ Hays, USAF
USAF Academy HQ
USAFA/DFPS
2354 Fairchild Dr., Ste. 6116
USAF Academy, CO 80840-
6258
Ms. Maureen Heath
Program Development Manager
TRW Inc. Space and
Electronics Group
One Space Park R9/1721
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr. George Heffner
Marketing Manager
ST Microwave
40031 Notting Hill Rd.
Murrieta, CA 92563
Hon. Joel Hefley, R-CO
U.S. House of Representatives
National Security Committee
2351 Rayburn House Office
Building
Washington, DC 20515
Ms. Sue E. Hegg
Director of Liaison
Office of Naval Research
800 N. Quincy St.
Arlington, VA 22217
Mr. Charles E. Heimach
Consultant
30543 Rue De La Pierre
Palos Verdes
Peninsu, CA 90275
Ms. Karen Henry
Communications
Representative
Rockwell Space Operations
600 Gemini Blvd.
MC R04B
Houston, TX 77058
Ms. Robin Hergot
Account Manager
Sun Microsystems
222 N. Sepulveda, 18th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Ms. Jennifer Heronema
Staff Writer, Space News
6883 Commercial Dr.
Springfield, VA 22159
Capt. Scott M. Herrick, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Douglas A. Heydon
President
Arianespace, Inc.
700 13th St. N.W, Ste. 230
Washington, DC 20005
Mr. Donovan B. Hicks
President
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
P.O. Box 1235
Broomfield, CO 80038-1235
Gen. James E. Hill, USAF (Ret)
Chairman
U.S. Space Foundation
2860 S. Circle Dr., Ste. 2301
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. Shephard W Hill
Vice President Aerospace Gov't
Affairs & Marketing
Rockwell International Corp.
1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Ste. 1200
Arlington, VA 22202
Mr. Jacob R. Hodges
NOESIS, Inc.
Office of Naval Research
800 N. Quincy St.
Balston Tower *1
Arlington, VA 22211
Mr. Tony Hogan
Director Domestic Bus. Dev.
Rockwell CSD
3200 E. Renner Rd.
MS 460-302
Richardson, TX 75082
Mr. Don Holland
Remote Sensing System Eng.
Lockheed Stennis Operations
Building 1210
Bay Saint Louis, MS 39529
Mr. Patrick M. Houston
Manager, Business
Development
Aerojet
1100 W Hollyvale
P.O. Box 296
Azusa, CA 91702-0296
Mr. William H. Hudson
11 Westpoint Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. Don Hull
Director
S/W Analysis & Prod. Dev.
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
13100 Space Center Blvd.
Houston, TX 77059
Mr. Howard L_ Hungerford
Manager, Business Development
Loral Space & Range Systems
MS 01-B 9970 Federal Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80921-
3616
188
1996 SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES
Mr. Sam E lacobellis
Former Exec VP & Deputy
Chairman
Rockwell Major Programs
2201 Seal Beach Blvd.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Mr. Charles H. Ide
President, UTMC
1575 Garden of the Gods Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Hon. Robert M. Isaac
Mayor, City of Colorado Springs
City Administration Building
P.O. Box 1575
Colorado Springs, CO 80901
Capt. Gordon D. Issler, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Michael Jablonski
Vice President, External &
Automotive Communications
TRW Inc.
1900 Richmond Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44124
Ms. Rebecca Jaurequi
Customer Relations &
Advertising
Rockwell Aerospace
12214 Lakewood Blvd., AC88
Downey, CA 90241
Ms. Teresa Jay
Director - Bus. Dev.
LEO ONE USA
150 N. Meramec, Ste. 620
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Mr. Chuck W. Jensen
Program Manager
Thiokol Corporation/Space
Operations
P.O. Box 707
MS GlOA
Brigham City, UT 84302
Hon. Lionel S Johns
Associate Director for Technology
White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20500
Mr. Darwin L. Johnson
Program Manager, Bd Systems
Inc.
1615 1/2 University Blvd. N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Mr. David H. Johnson
Vice President
CTA Inc.
Corporate Advanced Systems
6116 Executive Blvd., Ste. 800
Rockville, MD 20852
Mr. Norman Johnson
Manager, Honeywell
Satellite Systems Operation
19019 N. 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85302
Ms. Shawana P. Johnson
Director Worldwide Sales
EOSAT
4300 Forbes Blvd.
Lanham, MD 20706
Mr. Steven G. Johnson
ITT
P.O. Box 3700
Ft. Wayne, IN 46801
Mr. William W Johnson
Executive Director
GPS International Association
206 E. College St.
Grapevine, TX 76099-1808
Dave Jonta
Public Affairs
The Aerospace Corporation
P.O. Box 92957
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957
Mr. Kenneth E. Jorgensen
Raytheon Engineering
P. O. Box 5888
Denver, CO 80217
Maj. Terri Jorgenson, USAF
Air Force Space Command/PA
Peterson AFB, CO 80914
Dr. George Joseph
Director
Space Application Center
India
Jodhpurtekra
Jodpur TekraAmedabad
Dr. Francis X. Kane
President
GPS International Association
206 East College St.
Grapevine, TX 76051
Dr. Marshall H. Kaplan
Chairman
Launchspace Incorporated
7235 1/2 Arlington Blvd.
Falls Church, VA 22042
Dr. K. Kasturirangan
Chairman
ISRO Department of Space and
Space Commission
Antariksh Bhavan
New BEL Rd.
Bangalore, 560 094
Mr. Tom Kato
559 E. Pikes Peak Ave., Ste. 320
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Ken Kelley
Vice President
STC Applications
P.O. Box 185425
Ft. Worth, TX 76181
Mr. Thomas H. Kennedy
Center Director
LA Basin Data Services
Rockwell Space Systems
Division
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey, CA 90242
Ms. Diane Kent
Reporter, KKTV-11 News
3100 N. Nevada Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Mr. Ted D. Kerr
Senior Manager, Business
Development
Allied Signal Technical Services
Corp.
1150 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 100
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-
3715
Mr. George J. Kersels
Vice President Unmanned
Space Programs
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
13100 Space Center Blvd.
Houston, TX 77059
Mr. Jason Kim
Editor
Star, Inc.
51 Monroe, Ste. 506
Rockville, MD 20850
Mr. Jason Kimbel
Sensor Payload Engineer,
USAF
155 Discovery Blvd.
Los Angeles AFB, CA 90245
Mr. William G King Jr.
Consultant
King Business Services Inc.
36 Los Coyotes
Pomona, CA 91766
Mr. Jordon M. Klein
Research Analyst
J. P. Morgan Securities
60 Wall St
New York, NY 10260
Lt. Col. Donald Knight,USAF
Deputy Commander
721st SPTG/CD
1 NORAD Rd., Ste. 101-213
Cheyenne Mountain
Air Station, CO 80914-6099
Capt. Michael T. Knight, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Ms. Angie Knutsen
Reporter, KOAA-TV
530 Communications Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Ms. Krisstie Kondrotis
Titan II Business Development
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
MS: L5070
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. W Bruce Kopper, Esq.
Investment Counsel
Kopper Investment
Management Inc.
104 S. Cascade Ave., Ste. 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Demetrius A. Kourtides
Research Scientist
10205 Parrish View Dr.
El Cajon, CA 92020-9451
Mr. Milos Krmelj
Science Teacher Central
Technical Library
University of Ljubljana
Trg Republike 361000
LJUBLJANA,
Mr. Joe Kunches
Lead Forecaster
NOAA Space Environment Lab
MC/R/E/SE
325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80303
Dr. Alexander N. Kuznetsov
Deputy General Director
Launch Systems & Ground
Facilities, Space Flights
Russian Space Agency
c/o Frank Verlot, Director
Business Development, UTC,
Box 49028
San Jose, CA 95161-9028
189
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Ms. Vicky Labrecque
Geodetic Engineer
John E. Chance & Associates
109 Inverness Dr. East
Englewood, CO 80112
Mr. Farzin Laiezari
Manager, Passive Arrays
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
9675 W 108th Circle
Broomfield, CO 80021
Mr. William R. Lampe
Marketing Manager
Cincinnati Electronic Corp.
7500 Innovation Way
Mason, OH 45040
Mr. Richard D. Lander
President & COO
Marotta Scientific Controls Inc.
78 Boonton Ave.
Montville, NJ 07045
Mr. James E. Laney
Manager, Business
Development-MSLS
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179
MS: M-5030
Denver, CO 80201
Ms. Rayetta Lantzy
Manager, Business
Development
Aerojet
1150 Academy Park Lp., *119
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
RADM Katherine Laughton,
USN
Commander
Naval Space Command
5280 Fourth St.
Dahlgren, VA 22448-5300
Mr. Conrad A. Laurvick
Space Systems Engineer
Delfin Systems
10326 Mockingbird Pond Court
Burke, VA 22015
Mr. John Lavrakas
President, Advanced Research
Corp.
8145 Spire Ct
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Mr. Andrew Lawler
National Affairs Reporter
Science Magazine
1333 H. St N.W
Washington, DC 20005
Mr. Jeff Lawrence
Associate Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Legislative Affairs
300 E St S.W
Washington, DC 20546
Ms. Andrea Lee
Media Rep & Special Projects
Coord.
Lockheed Martin Missiles &
Space
1111 Lockheed Way Building
101, Dept 24-01
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-3504
Mr. Joseph D. Lehman
Director, Government Affairs
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
MS: DC1130
P.O. Box 179
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Michael G. Leonard
Manager, Program Development
TRW
One Space Park, MS R9/1721
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr. Larry Leppa
Director of Aerospace Systems
Signal Corporation
4400 Fair Lakes Court
Fairfax, VA 22033
Mr. Roger Lesser
Editor
Defense Security Electronics
5300 S Syracuse Way, Ste. 650
Englewood, CO 80111
Mr. Kirk Lewis
Sr. Analyst
Institute for Defense Analysis
Science and Technology
Divisions
1801 N. Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22003
Mr. Robert C. Lewis
Program Manager
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Scott Lindsay
Manager, Space Command
Programs
Thiokol Corp. Space
Operations
MS: GTOA
P.O. Box 707
Brigham City, UT 84302-0707
Mr. Michael T. Lloyd
Principle Project Staff Engineer
Honeywell, Inc.
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North
MS: 263-3
Clearwater, FL 34624-7290
Dr. John M. Logsdon
Director, Space Policy Institute
George Washington University
2130 H St. N.W
Washington, DC 20052
Mr. Tyler Lopez
Reporter, KOAA-TV
530 Communications Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Mr. Roger E. Loucks
Director, Southwestern Region
Aerojet
1150 Academy Park Lp., Ste. 119
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Mr. W Jay Lovelace
Vice President & Location
Manager
Honeywell Inc.
Satellite Systems Operation
19019 N. 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85308-9650
Capt James A Lovell, USN (Ret)
Lovell Communications
P.O. Box 8773
Horseshoe Bay, IL 60045
Dr. John MacDonald
President
MacDonald Detwiller, Canada
13800 Commerce Parkway
Richmond, BC V6V 2J3
Mr. Donald M. Mackenzie
Manager Launch Services
Hughes Communications, Inc.
P.O. Box 92424
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Mr. Kevin Maki
Reporter, KOAA-TV
530 Comunications
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Mr. Jim Mallory
Reporter, The Denver Post
30 E. Kiowa, Ste. 103
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Scott A. Manatt
Marketing Manager, Space
ECS Allied Signal Aerospace
Company
2525 W. 190th St.
Torrance, CA 90504
Dr. John E. Mansfield
Associate Administrator
Office of Space Access &
Technology NASA
300 E St N.W.
Washington, DC 20546
Mr. Robert Manson
Senior Development Officer
Government of Manitoba
Canada Dept of Industry &
Trade
430-155 Carlton St
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3H8
CANADA
Mr. George Manspeaker
Manager, BMDO
Hughes Aircraft Company
1100 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
Dr. Hans Mark
Professor, University of Texas
at Austin
Aero Engineering & Eng. Mech
Woolrich Labs 401C
Austin, TX 78712-1085
Mr. Don Markham
Business Development Manager
Hughes Space Systems
Bldg El MS: A-190
P.O. Box 902
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mr. Charles F Marshall
Manager Titan Advanced
Programs
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
MS: T300
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Norman Martell
Editor, Micro News
6651 Metropolitan
Colorado Springs, CO 80911
Mr. Daniel Martens
Asstistant Vice President
Science Application
International Corp.
21151 Western Ave.
Torrance, CA 90501
Mr. James Martin
President, Component Sales,
Inc.
7600 E Arapahoe, Ste. 306
Englewood, CO 80112
Mr. Joseph R Martin
Line of Business Manager
TRW
MS: R2/2094
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
790
1996 SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES
Ms. Martha S. Martin
CEO
Spectrum Astro Inc.
1440 N. Fiesta Blvd.
Gilbert, AZ 85234
Mr. Joseph D. Mason
Vice President & General
Manager
TRW Inc.
Space & Defense Systems
P.O. Box 1310
San Bernardino, CA 92402
Mr. Vince Mastroianni
Manager, Business Dev.
Teledyne Brown
2111 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 900
Arlington, VA 22201
Mr. Roman J. Matherne Jr.
Program Director MSLS
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P. O. Box 179
MS: M-5030
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Guy Mathewson
USAF SMC/CWG
155 Discover Blvd., Ste. 1062
Los Angeles, CA 90245
Mr. Charles McCann
c/o Dr. Wesley Posvar
University of Pittsburgh
1202 Cathedral of Learning
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Mr. Randy McConaughey
Director Cryogenics
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
P.O. Box 1062
Boulder, CO 80306
Ms. Judy McCoy
Space Mews
6883 Commercial Dr.
Springfield, VA 22159
Mr. Shawn McCoy
Vice President Business Dev.
BETAC Corp.
2001 N. Beauregard St
Alexandria, VA 22311
Mr. Walbert G. McCoy
Logistics Manager
HQ USSPACECOM J41
250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-3050
Mr. Grady E. McCright
Manager, White Sands Test Facility
NASA
P.O. Box 20
Las Cruces, NM 88004
Capt. Donald W McGee, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
USAF Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Ms. Merle McKenzie
Manager
NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
Tech Transfer &
Commercialization Program
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
MS: 301-350
Pasadena, CA 91109-8099
Mr. Jack McLaughlin
Director, Boeing
8000 Towers Crescent Dr.
Vienna, VA 22183
Dr. Edward P. McMahon
President, MRJ, Inc.
10560 Arrowhead Dr.
Fairfax, VA 22030
Mr. Darrell McMurray
Site Manager-GPS Operations
Rockwell Space Operations
8060 Cyprus Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80908
Dr. James J. McNally
AEOS Program Manager
Phillips Laboratory /Lll
3550 Aberdeen S.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87117-5776
Mr. Lawrence McNamara
Manager, Commercial Business
Hamilton Standard Space Sys.
International, Inc.
One Hamilton Rd.
MS: 1A-2-A66
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Mr. Robert Meder
P.O. Box 658
La Coste, TX 78039
Mr. David Melton
Space Systems Engineering
ITT Industries
1919 W Cook Rd.
Ft. Wayne, IN 46801
Col. Dan Mercier, USAF
Commander
DET 4 AFOTEC
625 Suffolk St., Building 863
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-1730
Mr. Thomas Messere
Marketing Manager
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
20 Desert Inn Way
Colorado Springs, CO 80921
Mr. Donald L. Meyers
Government Systems
Marketing Manager
Honeywell Inc.
1250 Academy Park Lp„ Ste. 102
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Col. Donald Miles, USAF
Air Force Space Command/PA
Peterson AFB, CO 80914
Ms. Becky Miller
Reporter, KOAA-TV
530 Communications Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Mr. Steve Miller
Business Development Analyst
Honeywell Space Systems
19019 N. 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85072-2199
Mr. Walty Miller
Freelance Writer
The Polygon Group
18615 St. Andrews Dr.
Monument, CO 80132
Chris Million
Videographer, KTEH-TV
100 Skyport Dr.
San Jose, CA 95110
Mr. Robert G. Minor
President
Rockwell Space Systems
Division
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey, CA 90242
Mr. Dennis Mitchell
Manager Ground Systems Prog.
Lockheed Martin
4041 N. First St.
San Jose, CA 95134
Mr. Robert J. Molloy
Zenith Star Director
Lockheed Martin Corporation
MS: DC8005
P.O. Box 179
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. Robert R. Monroe
Vice President & Manager
Bechtel National, Inc.
Government Operations
1015 15th St. N.W, Ste. 700
Washington, DC 20005-2605
Mr. Marcus Montoya
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph
30 S. Prospect St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Mr. D. Bruce Moody
Assistant Deputy for Programs
Operations
National Test Facility - USAF
730 Irwin Ave.
Falcon AFB, CO 80912- 7300
Prof. R. Gilbert Moore
Schriever Professor
USAF Academy
2354 Fairchild Dr., Ste. 6J71
USAF Academy, CO 80840-
6224
Mr. William W Moore
Director, Gov't Business
Develop.
Hughes Space &
Communications Co.
SC/S10/S380
P.O. Box 92919
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Mr. Jeffery A. Morrow
Manager of Government
Marketing
Rockwell Aerospace
1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Arlington, VA 22202-3475
Col. Nicholas Motowylak Jr.,
USAF (Ret)
Sr. Business Development
Manager
TSI TelSys Inc.
7100 Columbia Gateway Dr.
Columbia, MD 21046
Mr. Doug Mount
Bus. Dev. Manager
Ball Aerospace
9675 W 198th Circle
Broomfield, CO 80021
Mr. Peter J. Mulligan
Industrial Specialist, Defence
Logistics
DCMC-IASO Building 6
P.O. Box 7478
Philadelphia, PA 19145-7478
Ms. Diane W Murphy
President
Federal City Communications
1749 Old Meadow Rd., *340
McLean, VA 22102-4310
Mr. Walter T. Murphy
Director of Engineering
Development
NASA
John F Kennedy Space Center
Orlando, FL 32899
191
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Mr. James A. Myer
President
Photon Research Associates,
Inc.
5720 Oberlin Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
Mr. Joe Myers
News Reporter, KVOR Radio
2864 S. Circle Dr., Ste. 150
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. Nicholas Nadolsky
CEO
Micropac Industries
905 E. Walnut St
Garland, TX 75040
Brig. Gen. Willie B. Nance Jr.,
USA
Deputy Commanding General
U.S. Army Space and Strategic
Defense Command
CSSD-ZB
RO. Box 1500
Huntsville, AL 35807-3801
Mr. Walter Natzic
CEO
Aaron-Ross Corporation
1132 Indian Springs Dr.
Glendora, CA 91741
Ms. Deborah Newberry
Director
Commercial Space Systems
Computing Devices International
8800 Queen Ave. S.
MS BLCSIP
Bloomington, MN 55431-1996
Mr. Stephen B. Newman
Launchspace Inc.
7235 1/2 Arlington Blvd.
Falls Church, VA 22042
Mr. B W Neyman
Senior Vice President
Hughes Aircraft Co.
Hughes Information Tech System
16800 E. Centretech Parkway
Aurora, CO 80011
Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian
Deputy Associate Administrator
Office of Life and Microgravity
Science & Applications /
NASA
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Mr. James R Noblitt
Vice President & General
Manager
Boeing Defense & Space
Group Missiles & Space
Division
20403 68th Ave. South,
Building 1085
Kent, WA 98032
Mr. Larry H. North
Manager Strategic Analysis
International Launch Services
101 W Broadway, Ste. 2000
San Diego, CA 92122
Ms. Sue Norton
Associate Producer, Space Tech
EFX Communications, Inc.
2300 South Ninth St., Ste. 136
Arlington, VA 22204
Mr. Patrick M. O'Connell
Director, Space Tech. & Liason
U.S.N, Office of Naval Research
800 N. Quincy St., Ballston
Tower *1
Arlington, VA 22211
Hon. Jaime Oaxaca
Vice Chairman
Coronado Communications
Corp.
6658 Locklenna Lane
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA
90274
Mr. Cal Ogata
Director Business Development
Cubic Defense Systems
9333 Balboa Ave.
San Diego, CA 92123
Mr. Claude Oiknine
Program Manager
Israel Aircraft Industries
I.A.1/MLM BEER
YRAXOVPOB 45
Beer Yrakov, 70350
Dr. Willard P. Olson
Vice President & General
Manager
McDonnell Douglas Space and
Defense Systems
5301 Bolsa Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-
2048
SSgt. Brian Orban, USAF
Guardian Editor, HQ
AFSPACOM/PA
150 Vandenberg St., Ste. 1105
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-4500
Dr. Rudolph G. Oswald
Vice President, Business
Development
Honeywell Inc.
Space Systems Division
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North
Clearwater, FL 34624
Mr. Stephen Oswald
Dep. Assoc. Admin, for Space
Shuttle
NASA Headquarters
300 E. St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20546
Ms. Teresa Owen-Cooper
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph
30 S. Prospect St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Scott Pace
Rand Corporation Critical
Technologies Institute
2100 M St. N.W. *800
Washington, DC 20037
Mr. Vito J. Pagano
Director Business Development
Lockheed Technical Operations
Co. Inc.
4450 E. Fountain Blvd., Ste. 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Mr. Joe Palsulich
Senior Manager
McDonnell Douglas
5301 Bolsa Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Mr. Neil Palt
President/CEO
The Palt Company
3130 Skyway Dr., *408
Santa Maria, CA 93455
Mr. William D. Paramore
Manager, Advanced Programs
Harris Corporation-GASD
P.O. Box 94000
MS 19/4730
Melbourne, FL 32902
Mr. Robert Parizek
Business Development
Manager
Ball Space & Systems
Engineering Division
10 Longs Peak Dr.
Broomfield, CO 80021-2510
Mr. Don H. Parsons
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
P.O. Box 179
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. John A. Pasalevich
Manager
Hughes Aircraft Company
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 138
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Mr. Frank Patella
Director
Loral Federal Systems
685 Citadel Dr. E., Ste. 400
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Mr. Pat Patrick
Owner, KWYD
Box 5668
Colorado Springs, CO 80931
LCDR. David D. Pauls, USN
C4 Systems Staff Officer,
NORAD/USSPACECOM/J6N
250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 114
Colorado Springs, CO 80914
Mr. David L. Payne
Manager, Spacecraft Technology
TRW Space & Electronics Group
One Space Park R4/1098
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr.Thomas E Peoples
Vice President Business
Development
Aerojet
RO. Box 13222
Sacramento, CA 95813-6000
Mr. Michael Peters
USAF Cost Analysis Energy
1111 Jefferson Davis, Ste. 403
Arlington, VA 22202
Mr. Robert G. Peterson
Manager, Space & Ground
Systems
Lockheed Martin Corp.
4450 E. Fountain Blvd., *204
Colorado Springs, CO 80916-
2195
Mr. Gerald Pfeifer
Propulsion Specialist
Rockwell Space Operation
White Sands Test Facility
Las Cruces, NM 88004
Mr. Oren B. Phillips
Director, Space and Launch
Vehicles
Thiokol Corporation
MS: 150
P.O. Box 689
Brigham City, UT 84302-0689
Mr. Terry J. Piddington
Executive Vice President
CTA Inc.
7150 Campus Dr., Ste. 100
Colorado Springs, CO 80920-
3178
Mr. Denis M. Pirio
Vice President
Kaman Sciences Corp.
P. O. Box 7463
1500 Garden of the Gods Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80933
Maj. Donald Planalp, USAF
Media Chief,
USSPACECOM/PA
Peterson AFB, CO 80914
192
1996 SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES
Dr. Wilford R. Poe
Vice President & General Manager
Honeywell Inc. Space Systems
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North
Ms: 835-1
Clearwater, FL 34624-7290
Mr. Steve Poizner
CEO
Precision Tracking
4040 Moorpark Ave., Ste. 250
San Jose, CA 95117
Mr. Thomas G. Politte
Business Development Mgr.
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
13100 Space Center Blvd.
Houston, TX 77059
Ms. Sonya Porth
Corporate Development
Photon Research Associates, Inc.
5720 Oberlin Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
Dr. Wesley W. Posvar
President Emeritus, University
of Pittsburgh
1202 Cathedral of Learning
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Ms. Judy Pray
AssL Editor, Earth Space Rev.
Gordon & Breach Science
Publishers
820 Town Center Dr.
Langhorne, PA 19047
Ms. Penny Preston
Reporter, KKTV-11 News
3100 N. Nevada Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Mr. Ian Pryke
Head of ESA Washington Office
European Space Agency
955 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W, Ste.
7800
Washington, DC 20024
Mr. James Keller
Boeing Defense, Missies &
Space Grp.
P.O. Box 3999; MS: 8C-37
Seattle, WA 98134-2499
Ms. Christine Purcell
Computer Specialist, Silicon
Graphics
11845 W Olympics Blvd.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Mr. David A. Quinlan
Director Space & Missiles,
UTC - Pratt & Whitney
Propulsion Operations
P.O. Box 109600, MS: 702-54
W. Palm Beach, FL 33410-
9977
Mr. Lon Rains
Editor, Space News
6883 Commercial Dr.
Springfield, VA 22159
Mr. William E Ramsey
Vice President Corporate,
Business Development
CTA Incorporated
6116 Executive Blvd., Ste. 800
Rockville, MD 20852
Mr. Richard Randall
Reporter, KKTV-11
3100 N. Nevada
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Mr. Robert R. Rankine Jr.
Vice President
Hughes Space &
Communications Co.
1100 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 2000
Arlington, VA 22209
Dr. Robert A. Rappold
Site Manager
Rockwell
1250 Academy Park Lp., Ste. B0
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-
3766
Mr. G. A. Reddig
Advanced Programs Director
Hughes
2000 E. El Segundo Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mr. Peter T Regan
Vice President Director-Prog.
Manager
ITT Industries
100 Kingsland Rd.
Clifton, NJ 07014
Mr. Robert D. Rego
Project Manager
Trident Data Systems
1330 Inverness Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Mr. Gordon Reichal
Program Manager
National Systems & Research
5475 Mark Dabling, Ste. 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Mr. R. H. Reinicke
Director New Product
Development
Marotta Scientific Controls
17671 Irvine Blvd. *208
Tustin, CA 92680
Mr. Mike Renzuli
Business Manager
Pratt Whitney
P.O. Box 49028
San Jose, CA 95161
Ms. Marcia Resler
Assistant Editor, Hispania News
2862 S. Circle Dr., *122
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. John M. Reynolds
Product Line Manager
TRW
One Space Park
R2/2062
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr. Jon F Reynolds
Manager Program Development
Hughes Space & Communications
P.O. Box 92919
SC/S10/S383
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Mr. Eric Rhodes
Sr. Principal Systems Engineer
Sanders
RO. Box 868
NCA-01 6218
Nashua, NH 03061
Mr. Jay Ricci
Anchor/Talk Host, Business
News Network
5025 Centennial
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Mr. Paul Richards
Manager, Western Development
Lockheed Martin
4041 N. First St.
San Jose, CA 95134-1503
Mr. Steve Riebel
President
ATX Research, Inc.
10010 San Pedro, Ste. 200
San Antonio, TX 78216
Mr. David A. Roalstad
Director NASA Marketing
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
Aerospace Systems Division
1600 Commerce St.
Boulder, CO 80306
Mr. Chris Roberts
Business Development Director
CTA, Inc.
1521 Westbranch Dr.
McLean, VA 22102-3201
Maj. Louis J. Robinson Jr.
USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Gary J. Rodriguez
Sr. Editor, Vietnam Veterans
of Americans
P.O. Box 4321
Littleton, CO 80126-4321
Mr. Ronald L Roehrich
Div. Chief./Space & Theater
Missile
U.S. Space Command
Space & Missile Analysis
Colorado Springs, CO 80914-
5003
Mr. Thomas F Rogers
President
Sophron Foundation
7404 Colshire Dr.
McLean, VA 22102
Ms. Joan Roosa
Gulf Coast Coors, Inc.
13360 Seaway Rd.
P.O. Box 2007
Gulfport, MS 39505
Ms. Rosemary Roosa
Gulf Coast Coors, Inc.
13360 Seaway Rd.
P.O. Box 2007
Gulfport, MS 39505
Dr. Stanley G. Rosen
Director of Strategic Planning
Hughes Aircraft Company
8004 Kentwood Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Ms. Gina Ross
Principal, Aldrin Elementary
School
11375 Center Harbor Rd.
Reston, VA 22094
Mr. Jules Ross
President/CEO
Space Network
Box 2778
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Mr. Ron Ross
11375 Center Harbor Rd.
Reston, VA 22094
Mr. Axel Roth
Deputy Director Program
Development
NASA Marshall Space Center
MSFC/PA01
Huntsville, AL 35812
Mr. David J. Russo
Deputy Assistant Chief
of Staff, Space
U.S. Army Space & Strategic
Defense Command
1941 Jefferson Davis Hwy,
Ste. 900
Arlington, VA 22202
Capt. Carmia L Salcedo
Delta II Integration Manager
SMC/CLZI
160 Skynet St, Ste. 1215
El Segundo, CA 90245
193
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Mr. Gary R. Salisbury Sr.
Program Manager
Ball Telecommunications
Products Division
9675 W. 108th Circle
Broomfield, CO 80021
Mr. N. Sampath
Director, Antrix Corp. Ltd.
Antariksh Complex
Near New BEL Rd.
Bangalore, 560094
Dr. Eugene Sandberg, M.D.
1788 Oak Creek Dr., *407
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Mr. Tom Sandman
Avitronics
2212 Vermont Dr., Apt. J102
Ft. Collins, CO 80525-6185
Mr. Jerald R. Sanford
Vice President, Programs
Litton Computer Services
4747 Hellyer Ave.
P. O. Box 210059
San Jose, CA 95151-0059
Mr. Rick Sarpolus
Sales Manager
Allied Signal
1300 W. Warner Rd
Tempe, AZ 85284
Dr. L. S. Satyamurthy
Counsellor Space Technology
Embassy of India
2536 Mass Ave. RTW
Washington, DC 20008
Mr. James S. Savarda
Vice President Space
Applications & Tech.
Betac Corp.
985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 24D
Colorado Springs, CO 80915
Ms. Shirley Savarino
Product Line Manager
TRW, Inc.
One Space Park
Ms Building R9, Room 1076
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr. Marshall Saville
Sr. Engineering Specialist
AlliedSignal Aerospace
2525 W. 190th St
Torrance, CA 90504
Mr. Robert R. Scagni
Business Development
United Technologies Hamilton
Standard
One Hamilton Rd.
Windsor Locks, CT 06096-
1010
Mr. Jack Scherrer
Vice President Eastern Division
Geodynamics Corp.
11781 Lee Jackson Memorial
Hwy. Ste. 400
Fairfax, VA 22033-3309
Mr. Terry L. Schilling
Sr. Director Business
Development
Orbital Sciences Corporation
20301 Century Blvd.
Ms: B-17
Germantown, MD 20874-1181
Mr. Frank Schmidt
Systems Analyst
System Technology Associates
1631 S. Murray Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Mr. Bill Schnirring
President
NASA Tech Briefs
317 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Ms Ann Schrader
Medical and Science Writer,
Denver Post
1560 Broadway
Denver, CO 80202
Mr. Bill Scott
Rocky Mountain Bureau Chief
Aviation Week & Space Tech.
Magazine
6962 Los Reyes Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Mr. Steve P. Scott
Business Development
Manager
Rockwell
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey, CA 90241
Mr. David Scripter
Systems Analyst
Vanguard Research Inc.
5050 Edison Dr, Ste. 102
Colorado Springs, CO 80915
Mr. Richard Seebass
Professor, University
of Colorado
Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Campus Box 429
Boulder, CO 80309-0429
Mr. Carroll Duane Selby
Director, Advanced Programs
Harris Corporation - GASD
P.O. Box 94000
MS 22/4041
Melbourne, FL 32902
Mr. Henry E Senasack
Superintendent
Naval Research Laboratory
CODE 8200
4555 Overlook Ave.
Washington, DC 20375-5355
Hon. F James Sensenbrenner Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
Science, Space & Tech Comm.
2332 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Mr. Orlando Severo Jr.
CEO
Spaceport Systems International
3769-C Constellation Rd.
Lompoc, CA 93436
Mr. J. Greg Seymour
Business Development Manager
E-Systems, ECI Division
RO. Box 12248
St. Petersburg, FL 33733-2248
Mr. Ravi H. Shah
Manager, Advanced Programs
Harris Corporation - GASD
P.O. Box 94000
Melbourne, FL 32902
Mr. William Sheehan
Chief, Tech. Prgms &
Commercial
NASA Kennedy Space Center
Kennedy Space Center, FL
32899-0001
Mr. Larry Shelley
Project Manager
Computer Sciences Corp
685 Citadel Dr. E., Ste. 400
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Mr. James D. Shoemaker
Director, Gov't Marketing
Hughes Space &
Communications Co.
SC/S10/S380
P.O. Box 92919
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Mr. Merton Short
P.O. Box 180
Durham, CA 95938
Mr. Frank Sietzen
Editor/Asst., Military Space
1616 N. Ft. Meyer Dr., Ste. 1000
Arlington, VA 22201
Dr. Arturo Silvestrini
President & CEO
EOSAT
4300 Forbes Blvd.
Lanham, MD 20706
Ms. Susan A. Sinclair
Director Worldwide Distribution
EOSAT
1 Park Plaza, Ste. 600
Irvine, CA 92714
Mr. Patrick J. Skinner
Director, Air Force Programs
Litton Computer Services
985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 105
Colorado Springs, CO 80915
Mr. Michael L. Skolnick
Exec. Vice President, Rockwell
Rocketdyne Division
6633 Canoga Ave.
P.O. Box 7922, MC: AA07
Canoga Park, CA 91309-7922
Mr. Dan Smith
Host, Business Day
Business Radio Network
5025 Centennial Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80919-
Mr. David B Smith
Marketing Director, Space News
6883 Commercial Dr.
Springfield, VA 22159
Mr. J. Michael Smith
Hughes Info Tech. Corp.
16800 E. Centretech Parkway
Building S75/M/S 3501
Aurora, CO 80011
Mr. Skip L Smith
Associate
Sherman & Howard
90 S. Cascade Ave., Ste. 500
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Maj. Terence W. Sparks, USAF
Space System Staff Officer
Department of National
Defense DARC-T 4-6
101 Colby
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA
Mr. Larry N. Speight
Vice President
Honeywell Inc. Space &
Strategic Systems
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North
MS: 140-1
Clearwater, FL 34624-2790
Mr. Gregg Spendlove
Marketing Manager
Thiokol Corp.
MS: 100
P.O. Box 689
Brigham City, UT 84302
Mr. Steven Spilker
President
Integrated AeroSystems
2995 Airway Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
194
1996 SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES
Ms. Barbara Sprungman
Space Science Education
Consultant
Space Data Resources &
information
306 4th St S.E.
Washington, DC 20003-2044
Mr. Randy J. Srba
Vice President
CTA Inc.
7150 Campus Dr., Ste. 100
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Mr. Bruce A. Stach
Director Space Systems
ITT Aerospace/
Communications Div.
P.O. Box 3700
Ft. Wayne, IN 46801
Mr. Bruce W. Stanton
Manager Business Dev.
Hughes Aircraft Co.
2000 E El Segundo Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mr. Don J. Starkey
Executive Director
Space Center Alamogordo
P.O. Box 533
Alamogordo, NM 88311-0533
Mr. W. N. Steele
External Affairs Manager
Boeing Defense & Space
Group
Missiles & Space Division
P.O. Box 58747
Houston, TX 77258-8747
Ms. Kathleen Stempeck
Program Manager NTF/TD
730 Irwin Ave.
Falcon AFB, CO 80912- 7300
Mr. G. M. Stenovec
Director, Business Development
Boeing Defense & Space
Group
P.O. Box 3999
MS: 84-16
Seattle, WA 98208
CMDR. George M. Stephenson,
USN (Ret)
Senior Washington Rep.
TRW Inc.
1001 19th St. N., Ste. 800
Arlington, VA 22209
Mr. Eric R. Sterner
Professional Staff Member
House Science Committee
2320 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Col. Stanley S. Stevens, USAF
Director of Logistics
U S Space Command/J4
250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-
Dr. Grant H. Stokes
Assistant Group Leader
M 1 T Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St. S4-600B
Lexington, MA 02173-9108
Mr. Michael G. Stolarik
President & CEO
Space Applications Corporation
901 Follin Lane, Ste. 400
Vienna, VA 22180
Dr. B. A. Stone
Manager, Engineering &
Ext. Rel.
NASA
Washington, DC 20546
Dr. Edward Stone
Director, NASA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Building 180, Room 904
MS: 180-9044800
Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109
Mr. Gary Street
News Director, KVOR-AM
2864 S Circle Dr., Ste. 150
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Ms. Karen Sucharski
The Colorado Springs Business
Journal
31 E. Platte Ave., Ste. 300
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Arthur B. Sulkin
Director Advanced Programs &
Business Development
Rockwell Space Operations
Company
600 Gemini Ave. MC: R01E
Houston, TX 77058
Mr. Keith C. Sullivan
S & E.G. Manager
TRW Inc.
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 202
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-
3707
Mr. Robert Summers
Program Manager.
CTA Space Systems
1521 Westbranch Dr.
McLean, VA 22102-3201
Mr. Ed M. Swallow
Technical Director
Space Applications Corp.
300 Continental Blvd., Ste. 350
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mr. Kenneth R. Swimm
President
Lockheed Martin Management
and Data Systems
P.O. Box 8048
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Mr. Akiyoshi Takada
Communications Policy Bureau
Ministry of Posts &
Telecommunications 3-2,
Kasumigaseki, Chiyodaku
Tokyo, Japan
Mr. David L. Taylor
Director, Commercial Space Ops.
Ball Aerospace Systems Ball
Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
P.O. Box 1062
Boulder, CO 80306
Mr. John B Taylor
Director of Public Affairs
NASA Marshall Space Flight
Center
Huntsville, AL 35812
Mr. David L. Thomas
Vice President of Marketing
Gulton Data Systems
6600 Gulton Court N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Ms. Karen G. Thompson
Asst. Tech Engr., Ops Mgmt.
NASA John F Kennedy Space
Center
Orlando, FL 32899
Mr. W David Thompson
President
Spectrum Astro, Inc.
1440 N. Fiesta Blvd.
Gilbert, AZ 85233
RADM Paul D. Tomb, USN (Ret)
Consultant
Lockheed Martin
1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Crystal Square *2, Ste. 403
Arlington, VA 22202
Mr. John S. Toniolli
Director, Business Development
GTE Government Systems
Corp.
1450 Academy Park Lp.
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Capt Max Torrens, USAF
Chief, Guardian Magazine
AFSPC/PA
Peterson AFB, CO 80914
Mr. Peter Torrione
Director Space Systems
ITT A/CD
100 Kingsland Rd.
Clifton, NJ 07014
Mr. Robert W Tribit
Mgr. of Business Development
Lockheed Martin Services Grp.
2339 Route 70 West, S.W-2
Cherry Hill, NJ 08358
Mr. Bob Tucker
Public Relations
Rockwell
8600 Astronaut Blvd.
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Mr. Rick Tumlinson
Space Frontier Foundation
51 East 11th St., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Mr. Steve Turley
Program Management Analyst,
ANSER
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 223
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Mr. Andrew Turnage
Executive Director
Association of Space
Explorers, USA
800 Connecticut Ave., N.W,
Ste. 1111
Washington, DC 20006
Mr. William B. Tutt
Manager
Tutco/LLC
128 S. Tejon, Ste. 310
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. David M. Urie
Technology Advantage
3634 Woodcliff Rd.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Mr. Hilton Vail
Vice President
Chem-tronics, Inc.
1150 W Bradley
RO. Box 160A
El Cajon, CA 92020
Mr. Angelo Vallerani
Engineer
Alenia Spazio
Corso March 41
Turin, Italy
Professor Ernesto Vallerani
Chairman
Alenia Spazio
Corso March 41
Turin, Italy
Mr. Earl S. Van Inwegen
Director Air Force/Civil
Business Unit
TRW Inc.
One Space Park
R2/2094
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
195
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
Dr. Edwin L. Vande Noord
Senior Vice President &
General Manager
Ball Aerospace Systems Div.
P.O. Box 1062
Boulder, CO 80306-1062
Mr. Don Vanlandingham
Vice President Electro-Optical
Subsystems
Ball Aerospace Systems Div.
P.O. Box 1062
Boulder, CO 80306
Mr. Howard R. Vasina
Manager, Launch & Missile
Systems
Lockheed Martin Corporation
4450 E. Fountain Blvd., Ste.
204
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Mr. Dean Venable
Business Area Manager
Lockheed Martin Management
& Data Systems
935 First Ave.
King Of Prussia, PA 19406
Mr. Joe Verrengia
Science Writer, Rocky
Mountain News
7 E. Bijou
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Maj Gen. David LVesely, USAF
Commander 14th Air Force
747 Nebraska Ave., Ste. A300-8
Lompoc, CA 93437-6268
Ms. Annette Visty
Reporter, KOAA-TV
530 Communications Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Capt. George S. Vogen, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave, Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Jack M. Wade
Site Manager
MRJ Inc.
P.O. Box 49663
Colorado Springs, CO 80949-
9663
Mr. Jack F Wade
Director Defense Subsystems
Ball Aerospace & Technologies
Corp.
10 Longs Peak Dr.
Broomfield, CO 80021-2510
Hon. Robert S Walker
Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
Science Committee
2369 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Prof. John Wallace
Case Western Reserve
University
Dept of Material Science &
Engineering
White Building, Room 418
10900 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44106
Mr. Bruce Wallachy
Director Satellite Comm.
Lockheed Martin
1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Arlington, VA 22202
Mr. Edwin S. Warrell
Vice President
OAO Corporation
1150 Academy Park Lp„ Ste. 136
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-
3715
Capt. Robert A. Wasserman,
USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare School
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Laurence M. Weed
Program Manager
Litton
985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 105
Colorado Springs, CO 80915
Mr. Dave Wentworth
Dep. Chief, Tech. Prgms &
Comm.
NASA Kennedy Space Center
Kennedy Space Center,
FL32899-0O01
Mr. Larry H. Werner
Business Devlopment
IBM Government Systems
525 N. Cascade Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. D T White
EELV Program
The Boeing Company
20403 68th Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Mr. Gayle C. White
Business Development
Rockwell Space Operations
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 130
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-
3780
Mr. Dave Wielandt
Business Manager
HITCO Technologies, Inc.
1600 West 135th
St. Gardena, CA 90249
Mr. Peter Wilhelm
Director, Naval Center for
Space Technology
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory,
Code 8000
4545 Overlook St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20032
Mr. Richard H. Willey
Deputy Director
ITT Federal Services Advanced
Plans
RO. Box 5728
Lompoc, CA 93437
Mr. James R. Williams
Manager Business
Development
Lockheed Martin Technical
Operations
4450 E Fountain Blvd., Ste. 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Ms. Nancy Williamson
Program Development Manager
Rockwell Space Systems
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
MC AD91
Downey, CA 90240
Mr. James L Willis
Director Business Development
Loral Test & Information
15378 Ave. of Science
San Diego, CA 92128-3407
Dr. Donald C. Winter
Vice President & General
Manager
TRW Defense Systems
Division
One Space Park
R5/2090
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mr. Loring Wirbel
Western States News Editor
Electronic Engineering Times
P.O. Box 829
Monument, CO 80132-0829
Mr. Michael Woods
Photographer, KKTV-11 News
3100 N. Nevada
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Mr. John Wos
Director Innovative Technologies
Loral Corporation
1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,
Ste. 900
Arlington, VA 22202-4159
Ms. Janet V. Wrather
Vice President of Comm.
Lockheed Martin Missiles &
Space
1111 Lockheed Way
Building B-101, MS/24-01
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-3504
Mr. Michael W. Wynne
Vice President & General
Manager
Lockheed Martin Space
Systems
P.O. Box 85990
San Diego, CA 92138
Ms. Joyce Yamasaki
Reporter, KOAA-TV
530 Communications Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Mr. Richard T Yezzi
Program Director
Atlantic Research Corp.
5945 Wellington Rd.
Gainesville, VA 22065-1699
Mr. Dennis Young
Vice President
Kaman Sciences
P.O. Box 7463
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-
7463
Col. Peter W. Young, USAF
Program Manager Space Test
Prog.
SMC/TEL
3550 Aberdeen Ave. S.E.
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776
Ms. Carol Zelley
President Space/Speculation
P.O. Box 641
Burlington, NJ 08016
Mr. Joseph P Zimonis
Exec. Vice President & General
Manager
UTC Pratt & Whitney USBI
P.O. Box 1900
Huntsville, AL 35807
Capt. Evelyn M. Zohlen, USAF
Space Tactics School (STS)
Space Warfare Center
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83
Falcon AFB, CO 80912
Mr. Ron Zwerin
Reporter, KRDO
3395 S. 8th St
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
196
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS GLOSSARY
Abbreviations & Acronyms Glossary
ADC
ARGOS Data Communicator
EUNT/SIGINT
Electronic Intelligence System / Signal
AEC
Atomic Energy Commission
Intelligence
AFCEA
Armed Forces Communications
EOB
End of Battle
and Electronics Association
EOS
Earth Observation System
AFPM
Autonomous Fluid Physics Module
EOSAT
Earth Observation Satellite
AFSCN
Air Force Satellite Control Network
ERS
European Remote Sensing (Satellite)
AIAA
American Institute of Aeronautics &
ESA
European Space Agency
Astronautics
ESRIN
European Space Records Information
ALE
Automatic Link Establishment
EOMETSAT
European Organization for Meteorological
ALTEC
ASI Logistic Technological Engineering
Satellites
Center
FBM
Fleet Ballistic Missies
APL
Aerospace Propulsion Laboratory
FCC
Federal Communications Commission
ARQOS
Space based Data Acquisition Systems,
France
FSL
Fluid Science Laboratory
GBS
Global Broadcast Service
ARPA
Advance Research Programs Agency
GPS
Global Positioning System
ASPRS
American Society for Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing
GSO
Geo-Synchronous Orbit
ASW
Anti-Submarine Warfare
GTO
Geostationary Transfer Orbit
BDPU
Bubble, Drop & Particle Unit
HELSTF
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility
BSIDS
Border Surveillance & Intrusion Detection
IDR
Interim Design Review
BWIS
Battlefield Weather Information Station
1EA
Integrated Electronics Assembly
CAOC
CombinedAir Operations Center
IFOR
International Forces
CBM
Common Berthing Mechanism
IG
Inspector General
CCSDS
NASA's telemetry protocol pocket
INMILSAT
International Military Satellite
processing system
IPT
Integrated Product Teams
CEAS
Confederation of European Aerospace
IOC
Initial Operational Capability
Society
IRS
Indian Remote Sensing
CEOS
Committee of Earth Observation Satellites
ISA
Italian Space Agency
CINC
Commander In Chief
ISRO
Indian Space Research Organization
CIS
Combat Identification System
ISSA
International Space Station Alpha
CMG
Control Moment Gyros
JERS
Japan Earth Remote Sensing
CMES
Centre Nationale D'Etudes Spatiales
JPL
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(National Center for Space Studies)
JROC
Joint Requirements Oversight Council
COF
Columbus Orbiting Facility
JSMB
Joint Space Management Board
COO
Chief Operations Officer
JTGS
Joint Tactical Ground Stations
CSEL
Combat Survivor Locator
LEO
Low Earth Orbit
DASA
Defense Atomic Support Agency
LISS
Laser Illuminator Subsystem
DoD
Department of Defense
LMLV
Lockheed Martin Launch Vehicles
DOC
Department of Commerce
MBS
Mobile Base System
DSCS
Defense Satellite Communications Systems
MEO
Medium Earth Orbit
DTED-5
Diqital Terrain Elevation Data, Version 5
3 '
MIGOSC
Miniature Global One-Way Satellite
EELV
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Communicator
ELF
Extremely Low Frequency
M1LSATCOM
Military Satellite Communications
197
12TH NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
MoD Ministry of Defense
MOS Marine Observation Satellite
MPLM Mini Pressurized Logistic Modules
MSS Mission planning system of a tactical Air
Force
NARSIA North American Remote Sensing Industries
Association
NASA National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
NEO Near Earth Orbit
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NRO National Reconnaissance Organization
NTF National Test Facility
NTS National Technical Systems
ORI Operational Readiness Inspection
ORG Orbital Replacement Unit
OSE Operational Support Equipment
OSO Operation Support Organization
PCS Personal Communications Systems
PMA Pressurized Mating Adapter
PQE Path Quality Evaluation
R&D Research and Development
REV Revised or Revision
RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle
RMS Remote Manipulator System
RSA Russian Space Agency
SAC
SBIRS
SCUDTSOC
SEAL
SETI
SES
SPOT
SSRMS
STEP
STS
SWC
TAD
TENCAP
TIROS
TOGA
TSIDS
UAV
UCP
ULF
(JSGS
VHF
VOR
WGS-84
WiFS
WSD
Strategic Air Command
Space-Based Infrared System
Theater Support Operations Cell
United States Navy special forces team
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Societe Europeene des Satellites
Satellite Positioning and Tracking
Space Station Remote Manipulator System
Space Technology Experimental Program
Space Transport System
Space Warfare Center
TIROS Arctic Drifter
Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities
Television Infrared Observation Satellite
Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere
(Ocean Buoy)
Tactical Surveillance & Intrusion Detection
System
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Unified Command Plan
Ultra Low Frequency
U.S. Geological Survey
Very High Frequency
Visual Omni Range
World Geodesy Standard, v. 1984
Wide Field Sensor
Wind Speed & Direction
198
More windows to your world.
EOSAT offers the most complete panorama of satellite data available. That's why we're the
world's leading supplier of global geographic information.
Providing you the right solution is important. One phone call to EOSAT
links you to a worldwide network of satellites, ground stations, processing
centers, and value-added suppliers. EOSAT's experienced Staff and
Distributors will help you select the data type or combination that serves
you best. Call EOSAT today to open more windows to your world.
4300 Forbes HM • Lanham, Maryland U.S.A. 20706 • 1-S00-344-9933 • 01-301-552-0537
Announcing STK 3.0
Satellite Tool Kif is now expanded and upgraded.
The leading commercial satellite analysis software
is more intuitive, flexible, powerful and available
for Windows 95 and NT.
See our »>
Analytical Graphics version 3.0 of
Satellite Tool Kit* adds significant graphic
plotting capability, more flexible reporting, an
extensive satellite data base, more powerful
orbital input capabilities, terrain elevation
data and much, much more.
ANALYTICAL^ GRAPHICS, INC.
660 American Avenue • King of Prussia. PA 19406 • Voice: (610) 337-3055/(800) 220-4 STK • Fax : (610) 337-3058 • E-Mail: Info(a;stk.com